The unsettling post below got me to thinking: How can Obama be replaced legally in 2012?
Of course, it is far too early to speak seriously about that election. Back in 2005, did anyone see Barack Obama coming? But early predictions are fun to make, so let's indulge.
If Obama gets his shit together, we need not speak of replacement. But I don't see any fecal firming. I see three more years of political diarrhea. Sure, he'll have his ups and downs, as all presidents do, but the downs will be numerous enough to alienate the Dems and the middles.
To my mind, the closest historical parallel is 1968, when an unpopular LBJ withdrew from the race, leaving the field free for his veep, Hubert Humphrey. People forget that Humphrey -- once he started to distance himself from Johnson's war policies -- nearly beat Nixon.
We might also look back at 1980 and the Kennedy challenge. History would have been more pleasant if Carter had stepped aside.
Whom will the Republicans field in 2012? Today, they have no-one of Nixon's caliber. (I can't believe that I just used the phrase "Nixon's caliber" non-ironically.) Ike's veep was smart, canny, well-known and a skilled debater. In 1968, the former red-baiter was able to repackage himself as a cautious, cool-headed centrist; the public did not yet know of his crooked ways.
Nowadays, the closest thing the GOP has to a Nixon is, god help us, Romney. His Mormon background will continue to make him unpopular among the all-important evangelicals.
The Bush brand has, I hope, run its course.
The conservative movement has been commandeered by the kind of people who think that "Has George Noory fallen under alien mind control?" is one of the burning political questions of the day. The GOP has become the Crazy Person's Party, and I don't see the crazies tolerating any more McCains or Doles: That type of more-or-less sensible Crusty Old Fart no longer has a place at the table.
Palin? Perhaps. She retains a certain "tin foily" charm. Quite a few independent female voters loved her. But her resignation from the governorship struck many as cowardly.
The loons have made it clear that they favor Huckabee -- and that, I fear, is what they are going to get.
As a president, he would be the most dangerous man in American history -- far worse than Dubya. As a candidate, his extremism makes him beatable. (Of course, people said the same things about Reagan in 1980.)
Republican wackiness is the one thing the Dems have going for them. Americans dislike Obama's incompetence, but many of them also don't like the right-wing's rhetoric of paranoia, brutishness, treason and supernaturalistic mumbo-jumbo. Conspiranoia worked well for the Republicans in the 1993-1998 period, and it seems to be having a similar impact now. But I suspect that the tactic has its limits, and will soon become self-defeating.
The average American wants a return to normalcy. We want to party like it's 1999.
So let us presume the GOP chooses Mike Huckabee, the Crazy Person's candidate, the man favored by Chuck "secession" Norris. What about the Dems?
The future of civilization depends on making sure that someone other than the current screw-up stands between Huckabee and the White House. (If the current screw-up stops screwing up, ignore the previous sentence.) If Obama steps aside, who would take his place as the party standard-bearer?
The 1968 parallel would suggest a Biden candidacy. I still like Biden, but I seem to be the only one left. He has not made a good impression on the nation. Besides, he would bear the Obama taint.
In 1968, RFK would have defeated Nixon handily. Humphrey might have done so as well, if he were a senator and not LBJ's veep. RFK combined the appeal of the outsider -- he had positioned himself as a Johnson opponent and a friend to minorities -- yet he also reminded the electorate of better times and a better presidency.
The Dems need someone like that. Who?
The obvious choice would be Hillary. She has demonstrated that she is the fiercest political warrior in America today. But in accepting the Secretary of State position, she tied her future to Obama's. Yes, she is a good SOS, and she'd make a fine president. But consider: Afghanistan. Iran. Pakistan, Russia. Al Qaeda. Israel. Within a year -- maybe two -- foreign affairs will bite Obama on the ass, and I don't see how Hillary's rump will escape the same dental markings. Conceivably, a well-timed resignation over a matter of conscience could rescue her political chances -- but that gesture could also backfire.
I believe that Americans will want someone who reminds everyone of the prosperous Clinton years, yet who has no links to the present administration. We also need someone who will provide a reassuring contrast to the Crazy Party Candidate.
The choice is obvious: Al Gore.
The Nobel Prize winner who sounds like everyone's high school science teacher. A calming choice for un-calm times.
2012: Al Gore versus Mike Huckabee. Mr. Rationality versus Mr. Wacky. What do you think?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
A remake of "Seven Days in May," starring Barack Obama
This piece by John Perry -- formerly on the staff of LBJ and Carter -- appeared in NewsMax, the favorite news organ of buffoons everywhere. Despite that laughable provenance, I take this particular article seriously. Consider it a shot across the bow.
(Update: NewsMax has pulled the article. Here is a pdf copy.)
Perry warns of -- pushes for? -- a military coup against Barack Obama:
Perry, obviously, is engaging in an ancient tactic: Seeding treason while pretending to be a mere observer of events. His piece clearly segues into advocacy, even though he claims otherwise. Suppose someone were to publish lengthy, explicit directions on how to blow up the Washington Monument, only to end with the piece with the admonition: "This, we must never do." Would even the dullest dullard misunderstand that author's true intention?
On his website, Sean Hannity's minions have played the same dangerous game. The accompanying graphic speaks for itself.
Hannity himself may not have directly created this poll; apparently, his users did. Whoever set up this poll, and whoever responded to it, can be tracked via IP address.
Last June, the Wall Street Journal demonstrated that it could flout the laws against treason by publishing an explicit call for the dissolution of the United States.
I haven't had much liking for John Aravosis in a long, long time, but I certainly agree with his reaction:
From the United State Code, Chapter 115 -- Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activity -- section 2385:
Perry has crossed the line. He has violated sections 2385 and 2387. If Obama's Justice Department does not bring charges, then this president has no balls.
Meanwhile... Arizona congressman Trent Franks -- a birther nutball -- has declared Barack Obama to be "an enemy of humanity." He also said that "Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries."
Good lord. Do people actually buy this codswallop?
(Update: NewsMax has pulled the article. Here is a pdf copy.)
Perry warns of -- pushes for? -- a military coup against Barack Obama:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.And so on. You get the picture. Perry's description seems to apply more to the Dubya administration than to Obama's. Of course, a Bush may do what a Dem may not.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments....
Perry, obviously, is engaging in an ancient tactic: Seeding treason while pretending to be a mere observer of events. His piece clearly segues into advocacy, even though he claims otherwise. Suppose someone were to publish lengthy, explicit directions on how to blow up the Washington Monument, only to end with the piece with the admonition: "This, we must never do." Would even the dullest dullard misunderstand that author's true intention?
On his website, Sean Hannity's minions have played the same dangerous game. The accompanying graphic speaks for itself.Hannity himself may not have directly created this poll; apparently, his users did. Whoever set up this poll, and whoever responded to it, can be tracked via IP address.
Last June, the Wall Street Journal demonstrated that it could flout the laws against treason by publishing an explicit call for the dissolution of the United States.
I haven't had much liking for John Aravosis in a long, long time, but I certainly agree with his reaction:
If the Democrats don't step up and shut this kind of talk down right now, I fear we are going to see violence in this country. And yes, it will be the Republicans' fault. But it will also be the fault of the Democratic party for watching the crazy talk grow, and not doing a thing to stand up to it. At some point, silence abets.As you know, my own feelings toward Obama veer between irritation and repulsion. But those feelings are immaterial. I may dislike him almost as much as I disliked Dubya, but I still understand that he is the elected president. I never have advocated and never will advocate any extralegal method of removing any fairly elected politician from office -- indeed, I find any such suggestion to be beyond toleration. If the Republican party is going to call for armed revolution every time a Democrat takes the White House, then the Republican party may be considered a vehicle for treason.
From the United State Code, Chapter 115 -- Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activity -- section 2385:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District orNow here's Section 2387, which may be even more germane to our present discussion:
Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:Section 2383 -- Rebellion or Insurrection:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.Incidentally, militias are making a comeback, as I predicted they would. Section 2386 applies to them, I believe.
Perry has crossed the line. He has violated sections 2385 and 2387. If Obama's Justice Department does not bring charges, then this president has no balls.
Meanwhile... Arizona congressman Trent Franks -- a birther nutball -- has declared Barack Obama to be "an enemy of humanity." He also said that "Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries."
Good lord. Do people actually buy this codswallop?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A simple question about health care
Lambert at Corrente correctly draws a distinction between single payer and the public option currently under discussion. He agrees with the opinion that the currently debated health care reforms would, even with the watered-down public option, amount to "a wildly reactionary plan to further enrich rapacious corporations." I agree too.
But what if the public option were not watered down? What if it were freely available to all? If the majority of Americans took that option, would we not have, in the end, the equivalent of single payer?
And I've never understood why this grand experiment would bother libertarians and conservatives. Their ideology holds that private enterprise always operates with greater quality and efficiency than does the government. If that ideological precept holds water, then why fear direct head-to-head competition between private and public health insurance?
But what if the public option were not watered down? What if it were freely available to all? If the majority of Americans took that option, would we not have, in the end, the equivalent of single payer?
And I've never understood why this grand experiment would bother libertarians and conservatives. Their ideology holds that private enterprise always operates with greater quality and efficiency than does the government. If that ideological precept holds water, then why fear direct head-to-head competition between private and public health insurance?
Public option and the filibuster: An opportunity?
Senators Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer are going to force a vote on a health care plan which includes a public option. If the vote threatens to pass, the Republicans will, of course, filibuster.
That could be the best news possible.
Long ago, the filibuster was rarely used, since it was linked to southern Democrats who wanted to maintain segregation. But ever since the stench of racism wore off, the Republicans have used filibusters routinely. Now, the Senate cannot get any work done unless the Democrats maintain a 60 vote advantage. The filibuster insures the tyranny of the minority.
The majority leader can require a traditional filibuster, which would mean the making of endless speeches and -- amusingly -- the wearing of diapers.
The Democrats would be required to maintain a quorum of at least 50 Senators. The Majority Leader can compel them to be in the building under threat of arrest. This situations encourages Republicans to stay out of the building, shmoozing with the press, while the Dems stay trapped inside. The only Republicans required to attend would be the one or two carrying out the actual filibuster. The whole point of a filibuster is to make life unbearable for the Dems sleeping in cots.
A nightmarish situation? You betcha. But I've noticed a curiosity in the Senate rules on cloture (breaking a filibuster). Study this excerpt, and then tell me whether my interpretation is off the mark:
Motions, if I understand the rules correctly, may arise at any time. Indeed, the public option bill itself could conceivably contain language about changing the Senate rules.
In all of the blog writing I've seen, the presumption holds that the rules of the Senate can be changed only if two thirds of all Senators agree to the change. In other words, the magic number is 67. But the wording here speaks of "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." The very nature of a filibuster means that the Dems would be in the building and the Republicans would be gone. The magic number thus heads into the low 30s.
This could provide an opportunity to reform the Senate, to transform it into a body where a simple majority rules. This goes way beyond health care per se. One of the main problems with the Senate today is its inability to do anything, due to the supermajority requirement. To get the business of the nation done, the magic number should be 50, not 60. (I have long believed that supermajority requirements are anti-democratic and should be stricken from all legislatures.) If I am correct, then Rockefeller and Schumer may have found a way to change the rules once and for all.
Is my interpretation of Senate Rule 22 on or off the mark?
That could be the best news possible.
Long ago, the filibuster was rarely used, since it was linked to southern Democrats who wanted to maintain segregation. But ever since the stench of racism wore off, the Republicans have used filibusters routinely. Now, the Senate cannot get any work done unless the Democrats maintain a 60 vote advantage. The filibuster insures the tyranny of the minority.
The majority leader can require a traditional filibuster, which would mean the making of endless speeches and -- amusingly -- the wearing of diapers.
The Democrats would be required to maintain a quorum of at least 50 Senators. The Majority Leader can compel them to be in the building under threat of arrest. This situations encourages Republicans to stay out of the building, shmoozing with the press, while the Dems stay trapped inside. The only Republicans required to attend would be the one or two carrying out the actual filibuster. The whole point of a filibuster is to make life unbearable for the Dems sleeping in cots.
A nightmarish situation? You betcha. But I've noticed a curiosity in the Senate rules on cloture (breaking a filibuster). Study this excerpt, and then tell me whether my interpretation is off the mark:
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:Seems to me that a filibuster over health care could offer an opportunity to reduce the cloture requirement to a much more sensible 50 votes plus one.
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
Motions, if I understand the rules correctly, may arise at any time. Indeed, the public option bill itself could conceivably contain language about changing the Senate rules.
In all of the blog writing I've seen, the presumption holds that the rules of the Senate can be changed only if two thirds of all Senators agree to the change. In other words, the magic number is 67. But the wording here speaks of "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." The very nature of a filibuster means that the Dems would be in the building and the Republicans would be gone. The magic number thus heads into the low 30s.
This could provide an opportunity to reform the Senate, to transform it into a body where a simple majority rules. This goes way beyond health care per se. One of the main problems with the Senate today is its inability to do anything, due to the supermajority requirement. To get the business of the nation done, the magic number should be 50, not 60. (I have long believed that supermajority requirements are anti-democratic and should be stricken from all legislatures.) If I am correct, then Rockefeller and Schumer may have found a way to change the rules once and for all.
Is my interpretation of Senate Rule 22 on or off the mark?
One final Kennedy conspiracy
Oh, this is cute. A story about the infidelity of John Edwards focuses, in large part, on his former aide Andrew Young, who didn't father the "love child" in the case. Young is writing a book. From the proposal:
Ted Kennedy once told Young about a would-be assassin who managed to get into his Senate office because one of his bodyguards was having a gay liaison with one of his top aides.Hello...? Who was the assassin? How was he caught? Was there an arrest? Was there a hearing or a trial? If the assassin was not caught, how did Kennedy learn of his existence? When did all this occur?
Polanski weirdness
Yesterday, Associated Press accidentally published an internal memo as though it were a news story. The full text is here and here. Excerpt:
And yet Roman Polanski was and remains one of my favorite directors. I wish today's over-caffeinated movie-makers would rent Rosemary's Baby or Macbeth in order to receive lessons in pace, atmosphere, blocking and camera placement.
The victim in the 1977 case, Samantha Geimer (then Gailey), does not want the law to pursue Polanski any further, and I feel that the authorities should accede to her wishes. She has her reasons.
Incidentally, the original judge in the case once stated that chasing Polanski out of the country was his intent.
One little-discussed aspect of the episode is the odd behavior of Anjelica Huston, daughter of John Huston, later well-known for her roles in Prizzi's Honor and the Addams Family films. She lived with Jack Nicholson at the time and was at home when Polanski and the girl came over for the "photo shoot." If Anjelica Huston had no clue as to what was going to happen, she must have been stoned out of her gourd.
The whole sorry affair had one valuable legacy: The nation-wide shock-waves abruptly ended a quasi-tolerance for pedophilia which had begun to infect the larger cities in the mid-1970s. At the time of Polanski's arrest, major book stores prominently displayed "art books" featuring photographs of young girls. Such volumes offered predators the all-purpose "photo shoot" excuse. The bolder street newsstands sold outright kiddie porn alongside Playboy and Penthouse. I recall being shocked beyond words by what I saw at a general-interest open-air magazine rack on Victory and Van Nuys in the valley, located a short walk away from the courts and the cop station.
Quite a few people speak of the Polanski incident as a case of "Hollywood" protecting one of its own. In fact, "Hollywood" -- which is hardly the conspiratorial monolith some rubes make it out to be -- did no such thing.
Decades earlier, a major studio did act in a protective fashion when a gifted 27 year-old hell-raiser of a screenwriter, the son of a famous actor, struck a female pedestrian while driving. The actor's studio helped the driver -- John Huston -- escape the attention of both law and press. He later became one of the greatest directors of all time, even though he never did quite figure out how to be a human being.
i'm pushing out another writethru with some more background details before press conference.Various bloggers have posited just such a theory. As the Guardian notes:
no surprise, new york is really hot on this.
they particularly want to know why now. (has he never set foot in switzerland before?) sheila, theorizes that's because they're under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the U.S. a bone, but can yo ucheck with justice department sources there?
Many rumours are circulating, but one theory is that the Swiss agreed to arrest Polanski as part of a quid pro quo deal relating to UBS, the Swiss financial services firm. UBS admitted in February that it helped thousands of American citizens evade paying taxes and is still in negotiations about handing over details of secret accounts to the IRS.
Polanski's friend, the writer Robert Harris, has told the Guardian that he thought there was "something very odd, very suspicious" about the timing of the arrest. In Paris, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, called the arrest a "bit sinister".I won't discuss in public every bit of scuttlebutt I've heard about the original 1977 incident. However, I can say that when I first learned the news, I was so infuriated that I wanted to track Polanski down and treat him the way he treated Jack Nicholson in Chinatown -- only worse.
And yet Roman Polanski was and remains one of my favorite directors. I wish today's over-caffeinated movie-makers would rent Rosemary's Baby or Macbeth in order to receive lessons in pace, atmosphere, blocking and camera placement.
The victim in the 1977 case, Samantha Geimer (then Gailey), does not want the law to pursue Polanski any further, and I feel that the authorities should accede to her wishes. She has her reasons.
Incidentally, the original judge in the case once stated that chasing Polanski out of the country was his intent.
One little-discussed aspect of the episode is the odd behavior of Anjelica Huston, daughter of John Huston, later well-known for her roles in Prizzi's Honor and the Addams Family films. She lived with Jack Nicholson at the time and was at home when Polanski and the girl came over for the "photo shoot." If Anjelica Huston had no clue as to what was going to happen, she must have been stoned out of her gourd.
The whole sorry affair had one valuable legacy: The nation-wide shock-waves abruptly ended a quasi-tolerance for pedophilia which had begun to infect the larger cities in the mid-1970s. At the time of Polanski's arrest, major book stores prominently displayed "art books" featuring photographs of young girls. Such volumes offered predators the all-purpose "photo shoot" excuse. The bolder street newsstands sold outright kiddie porn alongside Playboy and Penthouse. I recall being shocked beyond words by what I saw at a general-interest open-air magazine rack on Victory and Van Nuys in the valley, located a short walk away from the courts and the cop station.
Quite a few people speak of the Polanski incident as a case of "Hollywood" protecting one of its own. In fact, "Hollywood" -- which is hardly the conspiratorial monolith some rubes make it out to be -- did no such thing.
Decades earlier, a major studio did act in a protective fashion when a gifted 27 year-old hell-raiser of a screenwriter, the son of a famous actor, struck a female pedestrian while driving. The actor's studio helped the driver -- John Huston -- escape the attention of both law and press. He later became one of the greatest directors of all time, even though he never did quite figure out how to be a human being.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Mr. Ebert chats with Mr. Moore about how to keep your house
Roger Ebert may not be able to speak these days, but he can still conduct a good interview. From his chat with Michael Moore, re: Capitalism -- A Love Story:
Yes. See here and here. The following comes from a lawyer named Michael Patrick Rooney:
Also keep in mind that -- as in all other matters involving foreclosure or eviction -- all you can really hope for is to stall for time. In all likelihood, the bank will eventually find the note, even if the process takes months.
In my philosophy, "stalling for time" is simply another way to say "life."
His study of the meltdown leads him to the puzzling matter of "derivatives," the mysterious financial instruments involved in the bank collapses. In the film, Moore asks three "experts" to explain a derivative to him. They can't.
"Nobody wants to look stupid, " he told me, "so everybody sort of nods their heads and goes, Oh yeah, yeah, I understand that. You're not supposed to understand it. It's like a snipe hunt on Wall Street.
"You hear commentators blaming the shiftless people who took out the mortgages: They're living beyond their means! They really pushed that after the crash -- that these low income people and their subprime mortgages did this to us. It had a racial overtone in it and was really a little creepy. What they never say is, the number one reason people go bankrupt in this country is medical bills.
"Elizabeth Warren, the law professor from Harvard, she has taken those like refinancing contracts into her law class, and she hands them out she says, Okay, tell me what the interest rate is. You read the 50 pages, you can't figure it out. A law student or professor can't figure out how it's gonna balloon. It's deliberately confusing."And here is a remarkable piece of practical advice:
Whether or not you agree with Michael Moore, he has one piece of invaluable advice in his new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story." If a bank forecloses on your home, ask them to prove their ownership by producing a copy of the mortgage.Is that true? Has this tactic ever been put to a real world test?
In the film, Marcy Kaptur, the Congresswoman from Toledo, says, “Don't leave your house if they try to throw you out.” Why not? "In many cases, they can't," Moore explains, "because it's already been cut up, chopped up and bundled and rebundled and a piece of this mortgage is sitting in China."
Yes. See here and here. The following comes from a lawyer named Michael Patrick Rooney:
When you say "produce the note" what you are doing is challenging the bank's assertion that you owe it money, that it has a mortgage on your house, and that it has the right to foreclose on you at all. One attorney has estimated that nearly 50% of mortgages have been lost or destroyed in the carnage of all the selling, pooling, servicing, tranching, and defrauding that went on in the years from 2001-2008 in the American Secondary Mortgage Market.The best point at which to try this ploy is during the discovery phase of disclosure proceedings. Conversely, you could list the mortgage as unsecured debt during bankruptcy proceedings. Always remember that this tactic is a gamble; you cannot rely on it.
Also keep in mind that -- as in all other matters involving foreclosure or eviction -- all you can really hope for is to stall for time. In all likelihood, the bank will eventually find the note, even if the process takes months.
In my philosophy, "stalling for time" is simply another way to say "life."
Sunday, September 27, 2009
More mysteries
I'm surprised that my posts about "the Osama mysteries" have aroused so little curiosity, although I'm grateful to be able to discuss such things without having to parry with the usual loonies. Don't worry: Cannonfire is not going to turn into a Bin Laden blog. I simply find myself distracted by these curiosities this weekend.
Osama Bin Laden has purportedly offered two audio messages this month, including one issued on the 25th that received little discussion. The more interesting of the two messages came on the 13th; it was directed to Americans. Basically, it's the Bin Laden Book Club recommendation list. He tells Americans to read three volumes, including Jimmy Carter's Peace, Not Apartheid (Bin Laden does not give the title, but the reference is clear) and Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (which Bin Laden calls "The Israel Lobby in the United States").
The third book remains enigmatic:
Juan Cole's readers have suggested that Bin Laden may have made a garbled reference to John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. However, Perkins is not in his 80s and he does not claim to have worked for the CIA -- although he has said that he was recruited by the NSA. In truth, though, the "NSA" reference always carried a funky odor. As the State Department pointed out in its rebuttal, the NSA's main tasks are codebreaking and electronic intelligence. The CIA is much more likely to have taken an interest in a man like Perkins. I suspect that he may have intentionally misidentified the Agency in order to speak freely and to bypass legal constraints.
In his September 13 message, Osama Bin Laden also warns that any American president who does not bow to "pressure groups" will end up like "former President Kennedy and his brother."
I must admit that Bin Laden is, in this communication, surprisingly cognizant of American culture -- so much so as to fuel speculation that the recording is a concoction. A lot of people think that Bin Laden died years ago. Perhaps he did. However, it seems to me that a forger would not have garbled the reference to the "Apology" book and its author.
Could these latest recordings be fake? I'm hardly qualified to opine on a technical level. But plenty of people are so qualified -- and that's where matters get tricky.
At least one previous Bin Laden tape (that of November 12, 2002) is widely considered to be a concoction -- at least, such was the conclusion of the respected Idiap Research Institute of Switzerland. But if all subsequent tapes have been shams, why would Idiap -- along with all of the world's intelligence services -- refuse to expose them? How could American fakers expect their work to go undetected by (say) the Russians or the Germans or the Chinese? The technology of simulation is quite good these days, or so I've read -- but I doubt that any aural counterfeiter is skilled enough to fool every expert on the planet. The technology of detection tends to keep up with the technology of deception. Any conspiracy to create bogus "Bin Laden" tapes would thus have to be a worldwide plot, an idea I find ridiculous.
Let us return to the question of whether Osama Bin Laden ever visited the United States. This piece in The New Yorker firmly establishes that he did come here in 1979. The sources are Khaled Batafi, a friend of the young Osama Bin Laden, and Najwah Ghanem, Bin Laden's first wife. (Thanks to Just Me for the link.)
I see nothing in the New Yorker article which precludes the possibility of a later trip to America. As we've seen previously, accused al Qaeda financier Yassin Kadi says that Bin Laden came to Chicago for business reasons in 1981. Kadi, who made Chicago his American base of operation, says that "he put Mr. bin Laden in touch with a group of engineers, several of whom were eventually hired." If this is true, I wonder why we've never heard from those American engineers, who surely would have an interesting story to tell.
This post from two days ago takes a close look at the claims of two questionable witnesses that Osama, using the name "Tim Osman," came to America on mujahadeen business in 1986, visiting Los Angeles, Nevada, several "military bases" and possibly Ronald Reagan's White House. A part of this story -- but not, alas, the truly pertinent part -- was confirmed by CIA officer Milt Bearden in a 2005 interview with French journalists.
The wildest story I've heard so far is that Osama Bin Laden posed for an ad for the Gap in the 1970s. Sorry; I just can't believe it. But part of me wishes it were true -- just as I'd love to learn that Stan Laurel really was the father of Clint Eastwood, as legend says.
Osama Bin Laden has purportedly offered two audio messages this month, including one issued on the 25th that received little discussion. The more interesting of the two messages came on the 13th; it was directed to Americans. Basically, it's the Bin Laden Book Club recommendation list. He tells Americans to read three volumes, including Jimmy Carter's Peace, Not Apartheid (Bin Laden does not give the title, but the reference is clear) and Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (which Bin Laden calls "The Israel Lobby in the United States").
The third book remains enigmatic:
One of the best persons to explain to you the causes of the events of the 11th is one of your citizens, a former veteran CIA agent, whose conscience awoke in his eighth decade and decided to tell the truth despite the threats, and to explain to you the message of the 11th. So he carried out some activities for this purpose in particular, including his book Apology of a Hired Assassin.I know of no book fitting that description. Do you?
Juan Cole's readers have suggested that Bin Laden may have made a garbled reference to John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. However, Perkins is not in his 80s and he does not claim to have worked for the CIA -- although he has said that he was recruited by the NSA. In truth, though, the "NSA" reference always carried a funky odor. As the State Department pointed out in its rebuttal, the NSA's main tasks are codebreaking and electronic intelligence. The CIA is much more likely to have taken an interest in a man like Perkins. I suspect that he may have intentionally misidentified the Agency in order to speak freely and to bypass legal constraints.
In his September 13 message, Osama Bin Laden also warns that any American president who does not bow to "pressure groups" will end up like "former President Kennedy and his brother."
I must admit that Bin Laden is, in this communication, surprisingly cognizant of American culture -- so much so as to fuel speculation that the recording is a concoction. A lot of people think that Bin Laden died years ago. Perhaps he did. However, it seems to me that a forger would not have garbled the reference to the "Apology" book and its author.
Could these latest recordings be fake? I'm hardly qualified to opine on a technical level. But plenty of people are so qualified -- and that's where matters get tricky.
At least one previous Bin Laden tape (that of November 12, 2002) is widely considered to be a concoction -- at least, such was the conclusion of the respected Idiap Research Institute of Switzerland. But if all subsequent tapes have been shams, why would Idiap -- along with all of the world's intelligence services -- refuse to expose them? How could American fakers expect their work to go undetected by (say) the Russians or the Germans or the Chinese? The technology of simulation is quite good these days, or so I've read -- but I doubt that any aural counterfeiter is skilled enough to fool every expert on the planet. The technology of detection tends to keep up with the technology of deception. Any conspiracy to create bogus "Bin Laden" tapes would thus have to be a worldwide plot, an idea I find ridiculous.
Let us return to the question of whether Osama Bin Laden ever visited the United States. This piece in The New Yorker firmly establishes that he did come here in 1979. The sources are Khaled Batafi, a friend of the young Osama Bin Laden, and Najwah Ghanem, Bin Laden's first wife. (Thanks to Just Me for the link.)
I see nothing in the New Yorker article which precludes the possibility of a later trip to America. As we've seen previously, accused al Qaeda financier Yassin Kadi says that Bin Laden came to Chicago for business reasons in 1981. Kadi, who made Chicago his American base of operation, says that "he put Mr. bin Laden in touch with a group of engineers, several of whom were eventually hired." If this is true, I wonder why we've never heard from those American engineers, who surely would have an interesting story to tell.
This post from two days ago takes a close look at the claims of two questionable witnesses that Osama, using the name "Tim Osman," came to America on mujahadeen business in 1986, visiting Los Angeles, Nevada, several "military bases" and possibly Ronald Reagan's White House. A part of this story -- but not, alas, the truly pertinent part -- was confirmed by CIA officer Milt Bearden in a 2005 interview with French journalists.
The wildest story I've heard so far is that Osama Bin Laden posed for an ad for the Gap in the 1970s. Sorry; I just can't believe it. But part of me wishes it were true -- just as I'd love to learn that Stan Laurel really was the father of Clint Eastwood, as legend says.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
A strange story
Well, I expected more reaction to the previous post, which discusses the allegation that Osama Bin Laden visited Nevada in 1986. Just now, I stumbled across a piece published last December in the New York Times, in which a witness claims to have first met Bin Laden in Chicago in 1981.
That claim comes buried in the middle of a profile of Yassin Kadi (also spelled al-Kadi, Qadi or al Qadi) a wealthy Saudi Arabian who owns a construction firm and who headed up the Muwafaq charity. Kadi's assets have been frozen due to accusations that he funneled charity money to al Qaeda -- charges that he denies. He has even sued Dubya in an effort to prove his innocence. (I wonder how you serve papers in a case like that?)
The NYT treats Kadi with respect. He doesn't seem like a fabulist, and the "Chicago" story does not convenience him in any way. This paragraph contains the buried gold:
Although the NYT paints a rather gentle picture of Kadi, this site mounts the case against him. The FBI says that Kadi had an ownership interest in Ptech, the American software firm which worked on classified DOD projects. Ptech's main product was -- supposedly -- an evolution of the quasi-legendary PROMIS software. (Perhaps we should break out the salt at this point. I've learned to be wary of stories about PROMIS, which has been blamed for everything this side of Nicole Simpson's murder.) Also see this credible 2002 article by Jim Crogan on former FBI Agent Robert Wright, who claims that the Bureau shut down his 1998 probe of Kadi's activities.
Since Kadi has always maintained strong ties to Chicago, you might be wondering if he has ever crossed paths with Tony Rezko -- or even Guess Who. So far, I've found nada on that front.
At any rate, I'm a surprised to discover that most people have little interest in the question of whether Osama Bin Laden spent time in the U.S. Then again, most "average Americans" I meet do not recognize the name Khaled Sheikh Muhammed -- the man accused by our government of being the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks. If those attacks were so traumatizing, why the apathy?
That claim comes buried in the middle of a profile of Yassin Kadi (also spelled al-Kadi, Qadi or al Qadi) a wealthy Saudi Arabian who owns a construction firm and who headed up the Muwafaq charity. Kadi's assets have been frozen due to accusations that he funneled charity money to al Qaeda -- charges that he denies. He has even sued Dubya in an effort to prove his innocence. (I wonder how you serve papers in a case like that?)The NYT treats Kadi with respect. He doesn't seem like a fabulist, and the "Chicago" story does not convenience him in any way. This paragraph contains the buried gold:
Mr. Kadi does not dispute his ties to Mr. bin Laden but maintains that he does not support him and has not spoken to him since the early 1990s.Incidentally, Kadi also counts among his partners a man called -- I kid you not -- Badkook.
They do share a common background: tall and in their early 50s, they were both born to wealthy families here in Jidda, studied engineering and, in Mr. Kadi’s telling, first met in Chicago in 1981. Mr. Kadi says he was working for the architectural firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill and that Mr. bin Laden — who is not known to have visited the United States — came to Chicago to recruit American-trained engineers for his family’s construction business. As Mr. Kadi remembers it, he put Mr. bin Laden in touch with a group of engineers, several of whom were eventually hired.
Although the NYT paints a rather gentle picture of Kadi, this site mounts the case against him. The FBI says that Kadi had an ownership interest in Ptech, the American software firm which worked on classified DOD projects. Ptech's main product was -- supposedly -- an evolution of the quasi-legendary PROMIS software. (Perhaps we should break out the salt at this point. I've learned to be wary of stories about PROMIS, which has been blamed for everything this side of Nicole Simpson's murder.) Also see this credible 2002 article by Jim Crogan on former FBI Agent Robert Wright, who claims that the Bureau shut down his 1998 probe of Kadi's activities.
Since Kadi has always maintained strong ties to Chicago, you might be wondering if he has ever crossed paths with Tony Rezko -- or even Guess Who. So far, I've found nada on that front.
At any rate, I'm a surprised to discover that most people have little interest in the question of whether Osama Bin Laden spent time in the U.S. Then again, most "average Americans" I meet do not recognize the name Khaled Sheikh Muhammed -- the man accused by our government of being the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks. If those attacks were so traumatizing, why the apathy?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Did Osama Bin Laden visit Nevada?
I'm going to regret this post.For one thing, I have developed an allergic reaction to most mondo weirdo 9/11 theories. And I definitely do not want to spend the rest of my life explaining why I distrust the two "paranoia superstars" who figure in this tale.
But...ah, what the hell. If the words that follow inspire someone out there to do a little further gumshoeing, then I'll consider this post -- and the grief it will surely cause me -- worthwhile.
Afghans in Nevada. While researching a completely separate matter, I stumbled across a fascinating 2005 piece by writer Nick Schou. The article focuses on a mercenary named Scott Weekly -- a.k.a. Dr. Death -- who may have worked for the CIA, the DIA, or the Navy, or all of the above. The CIA has officially denied employing Weekly. Even so, he makes a living billing himself as One Tough Hombre, and he has compiled a very colorful resume -- a resume which is way beyond the scope of this post. For our present purposes, the following must suffice:
A 1998 CIA Inspector General report found "no evidence" linking Weekly, a Vietnam War veteran and right-wing mercenary, to the agency. But in a just-aired Canal Plus documentary on the French television show 90 Minutes, Milton Bearden, who supervised the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan, says otherwise. While not mentioning Weekly by name, Bearden confirmed that the CIA was behind a bizarre training operation for Afghan mujahedin fighters in the Nevada desert in early 1986.What do these Nevada hijinx have to do with Weekly? I shall explain.
Weekly earned a five-year prison stretch in 1986 for smuggling C4 explosives aboard a civilian airliner. (Ye gods!) He kept his mouth shut, never revealing his motives or accomplices. After 14 months, he was allowed to walk out of prison because the court had received testimony indicating that the C4 was part of that aforementioned Afghan mujahadeen training mission in the Nevada desert. In other words, he did what he did with the covert blessing of Uncle Sam -- or so his witnesses told the court. They must have been persuasive, because Weekly walked.
We shall now take our leave of Scott Weekly and his colorful associates; his is a tale for another time. Right now, I want you to focus on the interview which Milt Bearden gave to French reporters:
"If we did some romantic training in the Nevada desert with a few Afghans . . . I'm aware of that. I know about that. There's something like that. But it doesn't matter."Enter Osama. Bearden's bean-spillage reminded me of one of the wilder tales which conspiracy buffs like to tell about Osama Bin Laden.
The buffs say that in this very same year -- 1986 -- Osama journeyed to the U.S. under CIA auspices and was given a tour of various "military facilities." He may even have visited the Reagan White House. While in this country, he used the false name "Tim Osman."
That claim first popped up on the internet shortly after 9/11/01 but well before Bearden said what he said to the French.
If you Google "Tim Osman," you will discover that many fringe web sites accept the Osman/Osama identification without question. (Here's an example.) Most of the sites devoted to debunking 9/11 conspiracy lore don't even bother with the Osman allegation. However, this skeptical page confronts the issue head-on, asking some questions which I consider pertinent and sensible.
Where's the evidence? There is a document which allegedly confirms the Osama/Osman identity. I reproduce it here; click to enlarge.Although certain conspiracists accept the document at face value, its provenance simply cannot be established. We don't know the issuing agency or the purpose of this document. We don't know if it was retrieved under FOIA. We don't know if it was written by a private individual or for an organization. As far as I can tell, we have only this one page -- which is neither the first nor the last. The format of the document makes little sense to me. The text zooms from one topic to another with no rhyme or reason.
In short, this piece of "evidence" proves nothing.
How did this document become known to the public? It comes to us via a couple of notorious figures. I hesitate even to mention their names...
Jailed covert "genius" Michael Riconosciuto and former FBI agent Ted Gunderson.
If those names are already very familiar to you, then you've probably spent an unhealthy amount of time carousing with oddballs. Please, please, please do not presume that you can give me any schooling on these two. I used to live a life very different from the one I have now, and back in the day I knew a lot of strange people. Yes, I know all about PROMIS and Inslaw and the Crisman connection and Hercules and Casolaro and the Cabazons and all of the other exotica in Mikey's background. In fact, although I never met the man, I first heard of him well before you probably did -- long before he was arrested on drug manufacturing charges.
I briefly spoke to Ted Gunderson many years ago, although he would not remember me. More importantly, I've spoken to his ex. Boy, does she have stories. Calling Ted Gunderson an idiot might be actionable, so I won't do that. Suffice it to say that his voice bears some resemblance to that of Leslie Nielsen, star of the Police Squad series -- a resemblance which some might find not inappropriate.
The closest cinematic equivalent to Michael Riconosciuto is probably the smarmy character played by Jack Black in The Jackal. As for Gunderson -- I picture him as a combination of Leslie Nielsen's Frank Drebin, Maxwell Smart, Dale Gribble and Major Frank Burns. And maybe we should throw Professor Harold Hill into the mix.
The Osman/Osama story rests on the word of these two gentlemen. Since I am not inclined to trust that pair, and since I do not want to get into any otiose internet battles with the sort of people who do trust them, I long ago decided never to mention the Osman allegation on this blog.
I am breaking that rule now. The regrets will probably set in within a couple of hours.
The story, for what it is worth: Gunderson and Riconosciuto claim that, in 1986, they met a young-ish Saudi named "Tim Osman" at the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, in California's San Fernando Valley. "Tim" was really Osama Bin Laden, of the wealthy Bin Laden clan.
(Side note: There is no Hilton in Sherman Oaks at this writing, although I believe one existed at the time. Paris Hilton lives in Sherman Oaks, but I don't think she's involved in this tale.)
"Tim" was accompanied by an American businessman who gave his name as Ralph Olberg. His job was to help the mujahadeen acquire advanced weapons for their fight against the Soviets. Riconosciuto, always the kind-hearted people-pleaser, wanted to provide the Afghans with Stinger-esque shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles manufactured by the Chinese. He had Chinese contacts. At least, that's his story.
"Tim" revealed that he had been to a number of U.S. military bases, where he saw demonstrations of some very advanced weaponry. He even hinted at a possible White House visit.
Unfortunately for him, some within the CIA doubted that "Tim Osman" truly represented the Afghans. (Bin Laden, as you know, was from Saudi Arabia.) The military had brought "Tim" and his posse out here because they wanted the mujahadeen to field test some advanced weaponry, the nature of which remains mysterious.
Riconsciuto and Gunderson are surprisingly vague as to what happened to "Tim" and Mr. Olberg after this meeting in Sherman Oaks. I don't think the Chinese missile sale went through. However, it is no secret that Washington began delivery of American-made Stingers to the Afghan fighters later in 1986. These shoulder-fired missiles turned the tide of the Afghan war.
I have just given you a simplified precis of this piece -- which, like most other examples of conspiracy buff literature, goes off on a zillion tangents and refuses to cohere into a linear narrative. For more details, try this.
A question of credibility. You must be wondering whether I believe this story. Before answering, let me tell you another anecdote -- one which has never before seen print or cyber-ink.
On November 1, 1992, an American intelligence operative named Ian Spiro was found dead, along with his family, in San Diego County. (The case remains mysterious. Alas, this is not the place to go into the Spiro affair.) The next day -- or perhaps on the 3rd; I'm going on memory -- newspapers throughout southern California reported on the tragic murders.
A woman I will here call J.M. -- some of you will need no further information -- read the Los Angeles Times account. Naturally, she was intrigued. J.M. had known Michael Riconosciuto before his arrest, and occasionally spoke to him via telephone after his imprisonment. As it happened, she was able to talk to Riconosciuto by phone later that very day.
"Do you know anything about this Ian Spiro guy?" she asked.
"Ian who?" he answered. When J.M. gave a summary of the LAT account, Riconosciuto admitted that he had never heard of the fellow.
Within a week, Riconosciuto's story had dramatically changed: Now he was saying that he had known Ian Spiro well -- in fact, Spiro and his family were murdered because of Spiro's (alleged) association with Michael Riconosciuto, International Man of Mystery.
For a guy in prison, Michael Riconosciuto managed, in those days, to maintain an impressive network of contacts in the outside world. At the time, a lot of conspiracy buffs considered him to be the magic whistleblower who knew all and would reveal all, just as soon as he got out of prison. (So keep writing those "Free Michael" letters, boys and girls!) He informed these contacts that he was the key to the Spiro mystery.
A reporter covering Spiro for the San Diego Union Tribune got wind of the Riconosciuto angle. I gave her my file on the guy. But I also told her to contact J.M., who relayed the story about Mikey's very different (and very telling) initial reaction to the news of Spiro's death.
That episode was classic Riconosciuto.Throughout that period, whenever an intriguing tale made the rounds within conspiracy buffdom, he would paint himself into the picture. Over the years, he has inserted himself into a zillion different scenarios, including the JFK assassination, MJ12, alien autopsies, the anthrax attacks, and much more.
Did he have links to the covert world before his arrest? Maybe. Probably. But I also believe that the guy is a born con artist. There is no contradiction here: Grifters and spooks (or wanna-be spook hangers-on) inhabit intersecting worlds and rely on similar skill sets.
The Spiro fable was far from the only outright lie that J.M. caught Riconosciuto telling. Figuring out which of his yarns might have a basis in truth is a task akin to finding a huckleberry in a hill of horseshit.
And that's why I dismissed the "Tim Osman" tale when I first caught wind of it. The claim came out only after 9/11. If Riconosciuto or Gunderson had ever mentioned Osama Bin Laden during (say) the 1987-1997 period, I would have been much more impressed.
Yet now I'm beginning to wonder. Milt Bearden confirmed at least part of the story. Afghans did come to train in the United States -- in the year 1986. The same year figures in Riconosciuto's tale.
Riconosciuto did not mention Nevada (as Bearden did), but he did mention that Osman and his mujahadeen had visited American military bases for training. Moreover, they (supposedly) were trained to use unusual advanced weapons that had never been employed in actual combat conditions. Nevada is, I believe, the likeliest place for that kind of exercise.
Not only that.
At the retrial of Scott Weekly -- remember him? The C4-in-the-luggage-compartment guy? -- his witnesses said that the effort to train the mujahadeen in Nevada was paid for by Stanford Technologies. You might recall that name from Richard Secord's testimony at the Iran-contra hearings. The paymaster was a man named Osman Kalderim, and he seems to have played a role similar to that ascribed to Ralph Olberg. (Whoever he really is.)
"Osman" is an unusual name, at least in America. The overlapping nomenclature does suggest one possible inspiration for the "Tim Osman" pseudonym.
Gunderson said that Olberg ran or worked for a company called Management Science for Health -- MSH. There is a real company by that name. Near as I can tell, it operates in a very above-board and honorable fashion, with no discernible links to world of covert ops. Nobody named Olberg serves on the board of directors or on the management team.
Osman Kalderim -- or Kaldirim -- appears to be a real person. I think it is fair to presume that the man mentioned in this story is same fellow mentioned in the Weekly trial. He is described as a "controversial Turkish businessman," and he seems spookier than the Jersey devil.
Before you say it: There is no need to tell me that this story has problems. I am very aware of the credibility issues surrounding Riconosciuto and Gunderson. I do not trust them. Milt Bearden's blabby interview harmonizes with some of the Riconosciuto/Gunderson information, but not with all of it. Bearden did not address the "Osman" claim.
Still, I would suggest there's just enough intriguing material here to justify further digging, and I write in the hope that someone will feel inspired to do just that. You must admit: The image of Osama having tea with Ronald Reagan at the White House is rather compelling.
Why are the culprits still free?
David Brooks wants lots more war in Afghanistan. Does David Brooks have a right to offer advice on peace and war? Sure, in the same sense that Mohammed Atta had a right to offer advice on how to land a plane.
If you haven't seen it yet, you must read Glenn Greenwald's trip through yesteryear. Even if you think you remember 2002-2003, you'll be shocked by these reminders of the sheer toxicity of the intellectual environment. Brooks -- March, 2003:
If you haven't seen it yet, you must read Glenn Greenwald's trip through yesteryear. Even if you think you remember 2002-2003, you'll be shocked by these reminders of the sheer toxicity of the intellectual environment. Brooks -- March, 2003:
So now we stand at an epochal moment. The debate is over. The case has gone to the jury, and the jury is history. Events will soon reveal who was right, Bush or Chirac...The jury has indeed rendered a verdict. So why are the culprits still free?
Something's brewing...
Lots of terror in the news all of a sudden...
Colorado and NY: This is the one that everyone is talking about. A 24 year old Aghan-born man named Najibullah Zazi, in an apparent attempt to make bombs, purchased a suspiciously large amount of acetone and a product containing hydrogen peroxide. Also see here and here. He appears to have co-conspirators.
Brooklyn: In an unrelated case, 21 year old Betim Kaziu has been charged with being an al Qaeda militant.
Dallas: A 19 year old Jordanian named Hosam Maher Husein Smadi "who entered the United States illegally" discussed in an online forum a plot to blow up the Fountain Place skyscraper in Dallas. He bought what he thought was a bomb from an undercover agent and tried to set it off with a cell phone detonator. Questions: How does a young Jordanian get into this country illegally these days? And how did he get the money for the bomb?
Springfield, Illinois: 29 year old Michael Finton, who uses the name Talib Islam, came to the attention of authorities when he contacted John Walker Lindh. After meeting an undercover FBI agent posing as an al Qaeda operative, he was supplied with a ton of explosives, which he tried to detonate in front of the Federal Building in Springfield. The explosives were inactive; he was arrested.
Quantico, Virginia: Daniel Patrick Boyd, his son and one Hysen Sherifi are charged with conspiracy to blow up the Marine Corps base in Quantico.
Australia: A man named Belal Khazal has been jailed for writing a terrorist how-to-do-it manual.
Germany: The State Department warns that al Qaeda plans to attack Germany on or around September 27, the date of the new elections.
Everywhere: Homeland Security officials have sent out a special advisory to all local police to look out for any suspicious activity around hotels, transportation centers, and self-storage facilities.
I have given brief rundowns of events that are surely more complex than would appear at first glance. Right now, I simply want to take note of the overall pattern.
Something seems to be up, eh wot?
I must confess that Obama deserves congratulations: He has not tried to make political use of these incidents.
Colorado and NY: This is the one that everyone is talking about. A 24 year old Aghan-born man named Najibullah Zazi, in an apparent attempt to make bombs, purchased a suspiciously large amount of acetone and a product containing hydrogen peroxide. Also see here and here. He appears to have co-conspirators.
Brooklyn: In an unrelated case, 21 year old Betim Kaziu has been charged with being an al Qaeda militant.
Dallas: A 19 year old Jordanian named Hosam Maher Husein Smadi "who entered the United States illegally" discussed in an online forum a plot to blow up the Fountain Place skyscraper in Dallas. He bought what he thought was a bomb from an undercover agent and tried to set it off with a cell phone detonator. Questions: How does a young Jordanian get into this country illegally these days? And how did he get the money for the bomb?
Springfield, Illinois: 29 year old Michael Finton, who uses the name Talib Islam, came to the attention of authorities when he contacted John Walker Lindh. After meeting an undercover FBI agent posing as an al Qaeda operative, he was supplied with a ton of explosives, which he tried to detonate in front of the Federal Building in Springfield. The explosives were inactive; he was arrested.
Quantico, Virginia: Daniel Patrick Boyd, his son and one Hysen Sherifi are charged with conspiracy to blow up the Marine Corps base in Quantico.
Australia: A man named Belal Khazal has been jailed for writing a terrorist how-to-do-it manual.
Germany: The State Department warns that al Qaeda plans to attack Germany on or around September 27, the date of the new elections.
Everywhere: Homeland Security officials have sent out a special advisory to all local police to look out for any suspicious activity around hotels, transportation centers, and self-storage facilities.
I have given brief rundowns of events that are surely more complex than would appear at first glance. Right now, I simply want to take note of the overall pattern.
Something seems to be up, eh wot?
I must confess that Obama deserves congratulations: He has not tried to make political use of these incidents.
People are smarter than I thought
65% of the country wants single payer. At least, they say they want a "government administered health insurance plan," according the latest CBS/NYT poll. See question 57, here.
Question 58 is even juicier:
"What if changes to the health care system do not include the option of a government administered health insurance plan? In that case, would you favor or oppose the changes under consideration?
Favor: 38%
Oppose: 40%
Don't know/No answer: 22%
Yes, the people are smarter than I thought. But they still haven't wised up to what Congress and Obama are doing.
Most of the poll respondents probably thought that the "government administered" plan under discussion would be available to 100 percent of the country. Essentially, that's a single payer plan, although many seem uncomfortable with the term. Alas, the public option in the House plan is a weak and wilted off-shoot, available to only some ten percent of the populace. And even that has been sliced out of the Senate bill.
Obama thinks we can live without a public option. Only 38% of the country agrees with him.
Question 58 is even juicier:
"What if changes to the health care system do not include the option of a government administered health insurance plan? In that case, would you favor or oppose the changes under consideration?
Favor: 38%
Oppose: 40%
Don't know/No answer: 22%
Yes, the people are smarter than I thought. But they still haven't wised up to what Congress and Obama are doing.
Most of the poll respondents probably thought that the "government administered" plan under discussion would be available to 100 percent of the country. Essentially, that's a single payer plan, although many seem uncomfortable with the term. Alas, the public option in the House plan is a weak and wilted off-shoot, available to only some ten percent of the populace. And even that has been sliced out of the Senate bill.
Obama thinks we can live without a public option. Only 38% of the country agrees with him.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Andy and Zsa-Zsa
You may have known this long ago, but I learned about it only just now: Andrew Breitbart -- the rising conservative superstar who "stung" ACORN -- is also a good friend to Ariana Huffington. He helped to set up the allegedly progressive Huffington Post. Does anyone else out there know more about their relationship? I never did trust "Zsa-Zsa"...
Wikipedia says that Breitbart grew up in Brentwood, which tells me a lot. In Brentwood, the police can arrest you for not driving a Mercedes. Although he is married (to the daughter of Orson Bean!), he has described himself as "Matt Drudge's bitch." He's also obsessed with Hollywood scandal. Hm.
Added note: Okay, I'm going to allow myself to say this, even though expressing the following sentiment opens me up to charges of envy.
The blogosphere is supposed to be the great leveler, yet the money and the contacts still go to the "Brentwood bitches" of this world. One of those bitches became rich and famous despite a lack of any discernible writing talent -- a trick he accomplished by running a fake news wire filled with pilfered copy, to which his bitch buddy Matt Drudge routinely linked. Meanwhile, the blogger who grew up "over the hill" in working class Canoga Park has to rely solely on his ornery self.
Wikipedia says that Breitbart grew up in Brentwood, which tells me a lot. In Brentwood, the police can arrest you for not driving a Mercedes. Although he is married (to the daughter of Orson Bean!), he has described himself as "Matt Drudge's bitch." He's also obsessed with Hollywood scandal. Hm.
Added note: Okay, I'm going to allow myself to say this, even though expressing the following sentiment opens me up to charges of envy.
The blogosphere is supposed to be the great leveler, yet the money and the contacts still go to the "Brentwood bitches" of this world. One of those bitches became rich and famous despite a lack of any discernible writing talent -- a trick he accomplished by running a fake news wire filled with pilfered copy, to which his bitch buddy Matt Drudge routinely linked. Meanwhile, the blogger who grew up "over the hill" in working class Canoga Park has to rely solely on his ornery self.
Children hail Glorious Leader!
The right-wing sites are having a fine time with this video, taken at an elementary school in New Jersey on June 19. Go here if you need help deciphering the lyrics. I have to admit that this sequence is almost as hard to stomach as the scene in Jesus Camp where the kids worship a cardboard cut-out of Dubya.
I'd love to know the name of the idiot teacher who just handed Obama's enemies a perfect propaganda opportunity.
Barack Hussein Obama
Folks on Wall Street tell him "Thanks!"
He gave our money to the banks
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Lefties loved the things they heard
And now he acts like Bush the Third.
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He lied on FISA, NAFTA too
You like his faces? He has two!
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
We thought he'd bring our soldiers back
So why are they still in Iraq?
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He played the race card without shame
Then screwed us all on Wilson/Plame.
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
His health insurance giveaway
Mandates that we all must pay.
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
First he murdered single payer.
Now he's the public option slayer.
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
When we thought he couldn't shock us
He embraced the rites of Baucus.
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
thinks California should drop dead
Next election they'll go red.
Mmm mmm mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Choose between a sell-out clutz
or those drooling right-wing nuts
Mmm mmm mmm!
Walk-outs, majorities and supermajorities
Today, there will be a massive walk-out of faculty and students at the University of California college campuses. No actual schooling will get done. Both profs and pupils are protesting the budget crunch, which will hit in the form of pay cuts, furloughs, lay-offs, and a 30% hike in the already-formidable fees paid by students.
As this account notes:
The problem is simple: California cannot raise taxes in troubled times, since our idiotic rules require a 2/3 supermajority on tax issues. Laws requiring supermajorities are inherently anti-democratic, because they allow a minority to set policy. In my opinion, supermajority requirements should be constitutionally banned throughout the nation, at all levels of federal, state and city government.
The Obama administration refuses to help California, and California will remember. For many years, residents of this state have paid more in federal taxes than they have received in services. Many other states cannot make that claim. If Obama's goal is to make sure that California's vote turns as red as its budget, he's succeeding.
As this account notes:
* More than 220,000 students are enrolled in the University of California.Will the protests help the UCs? Perhaps. But times are tough in California; if the universities have some funding restored, the cuts will be even harsher elsewhere. The heaviest ax always hits services to the indigent, who are in no position to protest.
* For every dollar of state money, the university secures six dollars in federal research money.
* UC researchers patent three new inventions per day.
* UC has the highest proportion of low-income students among the country’s top research universities.
It’s just stupid to think that de-funding the university will not seriously damage the state in the long run.
The problem is simple: California cannot raise taxes in troubled times, since our idiotic rules require a 2/3 supermajority on tax issues. Laws requiring supermajorities are inherently anti-democratic, because they allow a minority to set policy. In my opinion, supermajority requirements should be constitutionally banned throughout the nation, at all levels of federal, state and city government.
The Obama administration refuses to help California, and California will remember. For many years, residents of this state have paid more in federal taxes than they have received in services. Many other states cannot make that claim. If Obama's goal is to make sure that California's vote turns as red as its budget, he's succeeding.
Shh! It's a state secret
The folks at Common Dreams seem to be quite impressed with this WP story on the O-man's emergent new take on the state secrets privilege:
Good idea. So what happened to it?
And why do the better people in Congress have to fight against a Democratic administration on this issue?
Obama Tightens State Secrets StandardMarcy Wheeler seems much less impressed:
The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a new policy making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping.
In a nutshell, the Administration's new policy requires that a state secrets claim must be run by the DOJ leadership before being invoked in court. What, this wasn't being done before?Who is closer to the truth? Marcy, methinks. As this blogger wisely remarks:
...if the Bush Administration taught us anything, it’s that you can get whole teams of Justice Department lawyers to sign off on conduct that’s plainly illegal if that’s what the president wants. In the past, the executive branch’s use the state secrets privilege has amounted to: “Trust us.” Under Obama it’s: “Now you can really, really trust us.”Turns out Obama's "revisionism" is simply an attempt to stave off some genuinely reformist legislation proposed by Senators Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy. The Feingold/Leahy reforms include the following:
Require judges to look at the evidence that the government claims is privileged, rather than relying solely on government affidavitsNone of these sensible measures appear to play any role in the Obama "reforms." Here's Feingold's response to Obama's efforts:
Forbid judges from dismissing cases at the pleadings stage, before there has been any document discovery, while protecting innocent defendants by allowing cases to be dismissed when they would need privileged evidence to establish a valid defense
Require judges to order the government to produced unclassified or redacted versions of sensitive evidence when possible to allow cases to move forward safely
Establish congressional reporting requirements
Address the crisis of legitimacy surrounding the privilege by setting clear rules that take into account both national security and the Constitution
“While I am pleased that the Obama administration recognizes that the Bush approach was a mistake, its new policy is disappointing because it still amounts to an approach of ‘just trust us.’”Last April, Obama admitted that the Bush state secret rules were "overbroad." He discussed certain revisions that his legal team was supposedly working on, such as allowing a judge to review secret information in chambers.
Good idea. So what happened to it?
And why do the better people in Congress have to fight against a Democratic administration on this issue?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tea and vitriol
Our friend myiq2xu has written a fine short piece on the tea party movement. His post owes much to this magnificent offering by Glenn Greenwald, who takes, as his subject, the decidedly un-magnificent Glenn Beck:
But even at the top level of the movement, things are not so simple.
Not long ago, I received a mass emailing from none other than Richard Viguerie, the founder of modern conservative direct marketing. Of course, I want no part of any movement that bears Viguerie's taint. Even so, we should note that the man who helped to give us Ronald Reagan has established his dissatisfaction with the Republican party under George W. Bush. Today, Viguerie's admiration goes to Ron Paul.
The email in my inbox bears this return address: rav@conservativesbetrayed.com. Here's the message:
My mind keeps going back to 1994, perhaps the most mysterious year of my adult political life.
By any rational standard, things were pretty good. Sure, we had problems -- always have had, always will have. But we had peace and prosperity. In 1994, the economic fundamentals were sound. Our armies did not march off on bloody adventures. Terrorism was in check. America was respected and revered.
Nevertheless, on a psychological level, a large section of the electorate acted as though the nation had suffered from either military invasion or total economic collapse. Everyone just knew that the country had gone to hell in a handbasket. The party changeover in Congress was but one symptom of the rampant paranoia.
Think back and you will remember.
A widespread rumor held that Soviet troops had gathered at the Mexican border, poised for invasion -- yes, Soviet troops, in 1994! We were told that the administration had placed secret markers throughout our suburbs to guide the invading forces. The long-dreaded Great Gun Round-Up was slated to occur "some time this year." Money would soon have no value; only gold would retain worth. Clinton had been recruited by either the CIA or the KGB or both. National sovereignty would soon end; Clinton planned to make the U.S. subservient to a one-world government.
Throughout the country, people were training in private armies. There was talk of seccession.
Rush Limbaugh, holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart, said that the country was this close to rebellion. G. Gordon Liddy advised his listeners to go for "head shots" when shooting at federal officers.
You couldn't turn on the radio anywhere in the country, day or night, without feeling the waves of fear penetrate your mind and flesh. I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh: Every radio talker did his best to convince the populace that The End Was Nigh. Even in the smaller towns, lecturers warned of The Conspiracy to Kill Us All. The X-Files was on the air and in the air.
Although the atmosphere of generalized paranoia ultimately aided the GOP, the memes were bipartisan. Suddenly, and for the only time in history, the JFK assassination theorists received respectful play in the media. Pat Robertson, who had once told his audience "Thank God for the CIA," now promoted anti-Agency fear stories straight out of Covert Action Information Bulletin. 1994 was the heyday of the Roswell mythos. 1994 was the height of "Satanic panic." 1994 was the year of right-wing weirdness and left-wing weirdness and unclassifiable weirdness. All was fair, all was permitted, all was embraced -- as long as it contributed to the generalized sense of unease.
Those days are these days. 2009 is 1994.
And 1994 was 1973.
In the run up to the coup against the elected socialist leader Allende in Chile, the CIA used its Chilean media assets to create an exactly similar climate of fear. The yarns they spun were not always overtly political. The intent was to convince the populace that the framework of civilization had broken down -- that the ground had caved in and Hell's demons had come scampering out of the depths.
Lurid headlines screamed that unnamed parties had kidnapped innocent citizens, chopped them into pieces and scattered the body parts throughout Santiago. The "desquartezado" -- "The Quartered Man" -- became a figure of urban myth. Even more lurid news stories spoke of rampant cannibalism. Worse, the cannibals had a taste for the flesh of kidnapped children.
Those days are these days.
This is psy-war. We're being played.
Is the goal returning the Republicans to power? Or -- as the Viguerie letter suggests -- does the motive run deeper?
Ultimately, Beck himself is just a histrionic intellectual mess: willing to latch onto any hysterical accusations and conspiracy theories that provide some momentary benefit, no matter how contradictory they might be from one moment to the next. His fears, resentments and religious principles seem fixed, but not his political beliefs. Like the establishment leadership of both political parties, he has no core political principles or fixed, identifiable ideology.
Far more interesting than Beck himself is the increasingly futile effort to classify the protest movement to which he has connected himself. Here, too, confusion reigns. In part, this is due to the fact that these "tea party" and "9/12" protests are composed of factions with wildly divergent views about most everything. From paleoconservatives to Ron-Paul-libertarians to LaRouchians to Confederacy-loving, race-driven Southerners to Christianist social conservatives to single-issue fanatics (abortion, guns, gays) to standard Limbaugh-following, Bush-loving Republicans, these protests are an incoherent mishmash without any cohesive view other than: "Barack Obama is bad." There are unquestionably some highly noxious elements in these groups, but they are far from homogeneous. Many of these people despised the Bush-led GOP and many of them loved it.myiq2xu goes on to note that, as diverse as the tea party rank-and-filers may be, their leadership consists of GOP activists.
But even at the top level of the movement, things are not so simple.
Not long ago, I received a mass emailing from none other than Richard Viguerie, the founder of modern conservative direct marketing. Of course, I want no part of any movement that bears Viguerie's taint. Even so, we should note that the man who helped to give us Ronald Reagan has established his dissatisfaction with the Republican party under George W. Bush. Today, Viguerie's admiration goes to Ron Paul.
The email in my inbox bears this return address: rav@conservativesbetrayed.com. Here's the message:
(Emphasis added by me.) So there we have it: One of the tea party trainers confesses that he wants to transform both the Democratic and Republican parties. The rebellion's leadership is driven by ideology, not by partisanship.Conservative 'Funding Father' Richard Viguerie trains
Tea Party leaders to challenge incumbents
(Manassas, Virginia) Longtime conservative Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, provided training to about 120 Tea Party leaders at a seminar he held in conjunction with the group's march on Washington, D.C.
The seminar covered the following key topics:
* How to use new and alternative media ('under-the-radar' media) to challenge blue dog Democrats in primaries;
* How to get money, volunteers and members for your Tea Party;
* How to challenge big-government Republicans in primaries;
* How to challenge Massachusetts legislators who support changing their election law regarding Ted Kennedy's replacement; and
* How to bypass the mainstream media, and go directly into voters' homes with your message.
Viguerie also discussed the need for conservatives to stop playing the American version of the 'Brezhnev Doctrine.' Viguerie said, "For too long conservatives have conceded the Democratic Party to the liberals, and accepted that we would battle the left for control of the Republican Party. Tea Party activists are not wedded to working within the GOP, and they've demonstrated the effectiveness of not being beholden to one party or another."
My mind keeps going back to 1994, perhaps the most mysterious year of my adult political life.
By any rational standard, things were pretty good. Sure, we had problems -- always have had, always will have. But we had peace and prosperity. In 1994, the economic fundamentals were sound. Our armies did not march off on bloody adventures. Terrorism was in check. America was respected and revered.
Nevertheless, on a psychological level, a large section of the electorate acted as though the nation had suffered from either military invasion or total economic collapse. Everyone just knew that the country had gone to hell in a handbasket. The party changeover in Congress was but one symptom of the rampant paranoia.
Think back and you will remember.
A widespread rumor held that Soviet troops had gathered at the Mexican border, poised for invasion -- yes, Soviet troops, in 1994! We were told that the administration had placed secret markers throughout our suburbs to guide the invading forces. The long-dreaded Great Gun Round-Up was slated to occur "some time this year." Money would soon have no value; only gold would retain worth. Clinton had been recruited by either the CIA or the KGB or both. National sovereignty would soon end; Clinton planned to make the U.S. subservient to a one-world government.
Throughout the country, people were training in private armies. There was talk of seccession.
Rush Limbaugh, holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart, said that the country was this close to rebellion. G. Gordon Liddy advised his listeners to go for "head shots" when shooting at federal officers.
You couldn't turn on the radio anywhere in the country, day or night, without feeling the waves of fear penetrate your mind and flesh. I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh: Every radio talker did his best to convince the populace that The End Was Nigh. Even in the smaller towns, lecturers warned of The Conspiracy to Kill Us All. The X-Files was on the air and in the air.
Although the atmosphere of generalized paranoia ultimately aided the GOP, the memes were bipartisan. Suddenly, and for the only time in history, the JFK assassination theorists received respectful play in the media. Pat Robertson, who had once told his audience "Thank God for the CIA," now promoted anti-Agency fear stories straight out of Covert Action Information Bulletin. 1994 was the heyday of the Roswell mythos. 1994 was the height of "Satanic panic." 1994 was the year of right-wing weirdness and left-wing weirdness and unclassifiable weirdness. All was fair, all was permitted, all was embraced -- as long as it contributed to the generalized sense of unease.
Those days are these days. 2009 is 1994.
And 1994 was 1973.
In the run up to the coup against the elected socialist leader Allende in Chile, the CIA used its Chilean media assets to create an exactly similar climate of fear. The yarns they spun were not always overtly political. The intent was to convince the populace that the framework of civilization had broken down -- that the ground had caved in and Hell's demons had come scampering out of the depths.
Lurid headlines screamed that unnamed parties had kidnapped innocent citizens, chopped them into pieces and scattered the body parts throughout Santiago. The "desquartezado" -- "The Quartered Man" -- became a figure of urban myth. Even more lurid news stories spoke of rampant cannibalism. Worse, the cannibals had a taste for the flesh of kidnapped children.
Those days are these days.
This is psy-war. We're being played.
Is the goal returning the Republicans to power? Or -- as the Viguerie letter suggests -- does the motive run deeper?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The acceptable bigotry
Salon wants to warn you about a menace to civilization. Another truly heinous act has been committed by the religion that all true Americans love to hate: The Catholic Church. This band of mind-controlling monsters has dared to request married couples to say -- get this -- a prayer!
Can you believe the audacity, the mendacity, the sheer venomous malignity? Requesting adherents of a faith to say a prayer?
My god, will this conspiracy never stop? Does the Vatican's wickedness know no limits?
Here, for the strong of heart, are the actual words of that (suggested) prayer. Warning: What you are about to read is sheer unadulterated Catholicism. NOT SAFE FOR WORK! Prepare a vomit bowl. Looking at this text is like looking at the charred remains of the victims of white phosphorus.
Now, some of you may be saying: What's the big deal? If the prayer bugs you for some reason, just don't say it. Nobody is required to utter those words. And if you're so very bothered, maybe you should simply attend another denomination's services. Or don't go to church at all.
Fools who say things like that do not understand the dangers of popery.
Sure, other religions may do as they please. Other religions can say: "How we pray is not the business of those outside the faith." Other religions may say: "If you don't like our beliefs and rules, simply leave." Other religions may say: "Although a church is not a democracy, nobody forces you at gunpoint to stay in the congregation." Other religions may say such things.
But, as Salon writer Francis Kissling wisely notes, Roman Catholicism is very different. The RCs are everyone's business, and those outside the church have a right -- nay, an obligation -- to insist that the Roman Catholics pray and believe only as directed by outsiders. Moreover, those raised within the faith who have decided that they don't like its teachings should not simply go elsewhere. They should stay and bitch, bitch, bitch. They should pretend that they are being held at gunpoint, because doing so allows them to indulge in their infantile persecution fantasies.
Thus, you are a bigot if you tell a Jew how to pray on Yom Kippur or if you tell a Muslim how to pray at Ramadan. But it is not bigotry to tell a Catholic how to pray.
Here's another important point: We must hold the modern Church responsible for any and all wrongs committed in its long history. But no other earthly institution, organization or group bears any responsibility for long-ago sins.
Thus, it is perfectly correct to keep reminding people that the Catholic Church burnt so-called "witches" -- but it is a grave error to note that Protestant churchman killed a larger number of "witches." (It is also necessary to inflate the number of victims from 50,000 or so to four or five million. That way, you can consider yourself persecuted simply by adopting the "Wiccan" label.)
The horrors of the Inquisition are a valid topic of modern conversation, because the Vatican remains responsible for that, and no amount of apology will ever suffice. But one must never bring up the mass murders of Catholics by Elizabeth and other British monarchs, because no-one alive today bears any responsibility for such things.
The Catholic Church stands damned forevermore because it did not completely abolish slavery in Catholic countries until the middle ages. Of course, one must never point out that slavery lasted until 1830 in Protestant England and until 1865 in the (mostly) Protestant American south. Never mention the fact that serfdom lasted longer in countries affected by the Protestant reformation. Obviously, all mention of 19th century serfdom under the Orthodox church is strictly forbidden.
Here's a test question: If you are an American liberal, which do you consider more evil -- the Catholic who opposes both abortion and the death penalty, or the Southern Baptist who opposes abortion but embraces the death penalty? I think you know the (politically) correct answer.
Those expressing their anti-Establishment leanings may proudly wear the Guy Fawkes mask. But don't ever bring up the issue that had Fawkes so hot and bothered.
Can you believe the audacity, the mendacity, the sheer venomous malignity? Requesting adherents of a faith to say a prayer?
My god, will this conspiracy never stop? Does the Vatican's wickedness know no limits?
Here, for the strong of heart, are the actual words of that (suggested) prayer. Warning: What you are about to read is sheer unadulterated Catholicism. NOT SAFE FOR WORK! Prepare a vomit bowl. Looking at this text is like looking at the charred remains of the victims of white phosphorus.
“Father, send your Holy Spirit into our hearts. Place within us love that truly gives, tenderness that truly unites, self-offering that tells the truth and does not deceive, forgiveness that truly receives, loving physical union that welcomes. Open our hearts to you, to each other and the goodness of your will. Cover our poverty in the richness of your mercy and forgiveness. Clothe us in our true dignity and take to yourself our shared aspirations for your glory, forever and ever. Mary, our Mother, intercede for us. Amen."In the words of Joseph Conrad: The horror....the horror...
Now, some of you may be saying: What's the big deal? If the prayer bugs you for some reason, just don't say it. Nobody is required to utter those words. And if you're so very bothered, maybe you should simply attend another denomination's services. Or don't go to church at all.
Fools who say things like that do not understand the dangers of popery.
Sure, other religions may do as they please. Other religions can say: "How we pray is not the business of those outside the faith." Other religions may say: "If you don't like our beliefs and rules, simply leave." Other religions may say: "Although a church is not a democracy, nobody forces you at gunpoint to stay in the congregation." Other religions may say such things.
But, as Salon writer Francis Kissling wisely notes, Roman Catholicism is very different. The RCs are everyone's business, and those outside the church have a right -- nay, an obligation -- to insist that the Roman Catholics pray and believe only as directed by outsiders. Moreover, those raised within the faith who have decided that they don't like its teachings should not simply go elsewhere. They should stay and bitch, bitch, bitch. They should pretend that they are being held at gunpoint, because doing so allows them to indulge in their infantile persecution fantasies.
Thus, you are a bigot if you tell a Jew how to pray on Yom Kippur or if you tell a Muslim how to pray at Ramadan. But it is not bigotry to tell a Catholic how to pray.
Here's another important point: We must hold the modern Church responsible for any and all wrongs committed in its long history. But no other earthly institution, organization or group bears any responsibility for long-ago sins.
Thus, it is perfectly correct to keep reminding people that the Catholic Church burnt so-called "witches" -- but it is a grave error to note that Protestant churchman killed a larger number of "witches." (It is also necessary to inflate the number of victims from 50,000 or so to four or five million. That way, you can consider yourself persecuted simply by adopting the "Wiccan" label.)
The horrors of the Inquisition are a valid topic of modern conversation, because the Vatican remains responsible for that, and no amount of apology will ever suffice. But one must never bring up the mass murders of Catholics by Elizabeth and other British monarchs, because no-one alive today bears any responsibility for such things.
The Catholic Church stands damned forevermore because it did not completely abolish slavery in Catholic countries until the middle ages. Of course, one must never point out that slavery lasted until 1830 in Protestant England and until 1865 in the (mostly) Protestant American south. Never mention the fact that serfdom lasted longer in countries affected by the Protestant reformation. Obviously, all mention of 19th century serfdom under the Orthodox church is strictly forbidden.
Here's a test question: If you are an American liberal, which do you consider more evil -- the Catholic who opposes both abortion and the death penalty, or the Southern Baptist who opposes abortion but embraces the death penalty? I think you know the (politically) correct answer.
Those expressing their anti-Establishment leanings may proudly wear the Guy Fawkes mask. But don't ever bring up the issue that had Fawkes so hot and bothered.
OS and DC
I can't resist offering two more observations about Dan Brown's latest, The Lost Symbol, even though I have not yet finished the book. (Although fun, it's a bit more put-down-able than were its predecessors.)
In a key scene, our hero narrowly avoids being arrested by the head of the CIA's Office of Security, who has taken over a crime scene investigation in the Capitol building. Unless I am misinformed, the Office of Security has -- in the real world -- no authority to arrest American citizens. The best description of the OS may be found in Jim Hougan's Watergate classic, Secret Agenda.
Brown probably knows this stuff. We must grant an author the right to fudge the facts in order to make the gears of the plot keep turning.
Here, Kitty: Perhaps I may say a few words about one of the most charming legends ever told about our nation's capitol. Early on in The Lost Symbol, Robert Langdon contemplates the ghost lore surrounding the Capitol building. The list of specters includes "the most famous apparition of all, reported numerous times in the Capitol basement -- an ephemeral black cat that prowled the substructure’s eerie maze of narrow passageways and cubicles."
Brown leaves out the best part of the story. The cat is known as the Demon Cat -- DC for short. According to legend, it appears first as a normal-sized feline. Then, as it charges toward the onlooker (usually a janitor), it grows to the size of a saber-tooth, only to disappear just before contact. An appearance by DC is said to presage a great national tragedy. Alas, I know of no reports that he showed up for 9/11, for Dubya's ghastly peanut encounter, or for the unveiling of the Baucus plan. (In fact, the most recent DC report known to me occurred in the 1970s.)
Incidentally: Jim Hougan and his wife Carolyn -- jointly using the name "John Case" -- write thrillers that are just as compelling as Dan Brown's. Check 'em out!
In a key scene, our hero narrowly avoids being arrested by the head of the CIA's Office of Security, who has taken over a crime scene investigation in the Capitol building. Unless I am misinformed, the Office of Security has -- in the real world -- no authority to arrest American citizens. The best description of the OS may be found in Jim Hougan's Watergate classic, Secret Agenda.
The reputation of the Office of Security tends to be that of a guard service staffed by gumshoes and technicians whose principal tasks are to conduct background investigations, enforce security regulations and protect the agency's property. In reality, however, the Office of Security is far more complex, and even mysterious. Its broad responsibilities -- to protect CIA assets, operations and personnel -- require it to maintain close liaison with any number of police departments, to operate wherever the agency has "assets," and to maintain more than 1.7 million security files on individuals who are, for one reason or another, legitimately or not, of interest to the CIA. The OS is also responsible for housing and guarding defectors, for helping to establish their bona fides, and for assisting in their debriefing. Similarly, it is the Office of Security that debriefs retiring agency employees and administers the sometimes embarrassing polygraph tests that are a part of the CIA's routine. By no means finally, the inviolability of all classified information within the domain of the CIA is ultimately the responsibility of the OS.Keep in mind that this book was published in 1984; undoubtedly, changes have occurred. But I still doubt that the OS chief can simply take over a murder/kidnapping investigation being handled by the Capitol Police, especially when the victim is not CIA. The OS has always maintained cordial relationships with the DC cops. In the book, the OS head is about as cordial as napalm.
By the very nature of its work, the Office of Security has domestic responsibilities that go far beyond those of any other CIA component. If, for example, a CIA officer falls afoul of the local police, it is the OS that will handle (or manipulate) the matter to ensure that no secrets are compromised. Similarly, if a CIA officer suffers a mental breakdown, it is the OS that will take charge of him, consult its list of approved psychiatrists and, if necessary, bundle the patient off to a CIA sanatorium. And, of course, if a staff member is suspected of leaking secrets, whether to the press or to the enemy (often no distinction is made between the two), is is the Office of Security that will investigate the matter, conduct physical surveillance and, if necessary, break into his home in order to install eavesdropping devices, which the Office of Security will then proceed to monitor.
Brown probably knows this stuff. We must grant an author the right to fudge the facts in order to make the gears of the plot keep turning.
Here, Kitty: Perhaps I may say a few words about one of the most charming legends ever told about our nation's capitol. Early on in The Lost Symbol, Robert Langdon contemplates the ghost lore surrounding the Capitol building. The list of specters includes "the most famous apparition of all, reported numerous times in the Capitol basement -- an ephemeral black cat that prowled the substructure’s eerie maze of narrow passageways and cubicles."
Brown leaves out the best part of the story. The cat is known as the Demon Cat -- DC for short. According to legend, it appears first as a normal-sized feline. Then, as it charges toward the onlooker (usually a janitor), it grows to the size of a saber-tooth, only to disappear just before contact. An appearance by DC is said to presage a great national tragedy. Alas, I know of no reports that he showed up for 9/11, for Dubya's ghastly peanut encounter, or for the unveiling of the Baucus plan. (In fact, the most recent DC report known to me occurred in the 1970s.)
Incidentally: Jim Hougan and his wife Carolyn -- jointly using the name "John Case" -- write thrillers that are just as compelling as Dan Brown's. Check 'em out!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Fight the metasystem
Regular readers know that I dislike Facebook and other social networking sites. I'm always hesitant to discuss Facebook's CIA origins, even though the Agency linkage is (as we have seen in previous posts) well-documented.
I haven't had an easy time articulating the nature of my suspicions about social networking schemes. So far, the best I've managed to come up with was this paragraph:
"Dan Brown?" I hear you saying. "But whole books have been written about all the errors in The DaVinci Code." I could have written such a volume myself. But for reasons we shall discuss anon, the following passage from The Lost Symbol deserves your attention:
His first and best thriller, Digital Fortress, offers a description of the NSA's inner workings -- a description which presaged material later made public by Russell Tice and others. (This blog has discussed Tice on several past occasions; see here.) How Brown made these contacts is no secret; he explains the process in a 1998 interview. I would not be entirely surprised to discover that Tice was one of his informants.
My bottom line is this: I think that there are those within the intelligence community who take an interest in the "national temperature," just as the novel states. Social networking sites may function as a gauge. On such sites, average citizens spew forth an endless volcano of private data, the vast majority of which is piffle. But even piffle can deliver important sociological insights, if viewed en masse and from a sufficient distance.
For a lower-tech illustration of my point, think back to the scene in Watchmen (the graphic novel, not the film) in which Ozymandias makes stock market decisions while watching a bank of thirty television monitors relaying video streams from around the world:
One could control the entire culture.
Consider the birthers and the tea-partyers who trade in weird anti-Obama conspiracy theories. What kind of impact do those theories really have? A poll won't give you the true answer, because even the most intellectually dubious assertions may, if repeated ceaselessly, have a cumulative psycho-social impact.
Such was the lesson of 1994. Many of the claims made about Bill Clinton at that time were simply absurd. But while any individual absurd claim may have swayed only five or ten percent of the population, the sheer ubiquity of such claims contributed to a general sense of unease, fear, angst. That angst translated into a congressional changeover. Even though we had peace and relative prosperity, the American public behaved as though facing military attack and financial ruin.
Ozymandias saw an "oiled muscleman with machine guns" and saw reason to invest in maternity goods. A modern Ozymandias could glance at (say) a hundred random Facebook pages and tell you many un-obvious but accurate things about the American Id.
Let me, in a humble and stumbling fashion, try my own hand at this game.
The popularity of Twilight tells us that a growing number of young American women fantasize about using sex to reward predators. Young American males understand a message which no-one will ever state directly: Act like a predator and desirable girls will want to fuck you. So the males will dress like predators and use the language of predators.
The theme of predation can be considered an "e-meme" -- an emotional meme. E-memes, being irrational, are far more insidious and dangerous than are mere memes, which are intellectual concepts.
A clever manipulator could find ways to channel the predation e-meme into a nationwide desire for war, rebellion, secession.
Tell me your cheap little dreams and I can control you.
I haven't had an easy time articulating the nature of my suspicions about social networking schemes. So far, the best I've managed to come up with was this paragraph:
Maybe that seemingly innocuous information, along with all of the other info broadcast via social networking pages, can be fed into a engine analogous to the Personality Assessment System developed by John Gittinger of the CIA. Only now the personalities being assessed belong not to individuals but to whole populations. Maybe we're all being clocked.At this time, I'm reading a book which, en passant, makes the same point. The book is the same one you may be reading: The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown.
"Dan Brown?" I hear you saying. "But whole books have been written about all the errors in The DaVinci Code." I could have written such a volume myself. But for reasons we shall discuss anon, the following passage from The Lost Symbol deserves your attention:
“…Following 9/11, the government was intercepting and crunching enormous data fields -- civilian e-mail, cell phone, fax, text, Web sites -- sniffing for keywords associated with terrorist communications. So I wrote a piece of software that let them process their data field in a second way . . . pulling from it an additional intelligence product.” She smiled. “Essentially, my software let them take America’s temperature.”Again: I know very well that Dan Brown has, in the past, expressed some rather unsupportable ideas about gnosticism, occultism, archeology, tarot, art history and ecclesiastical history. I laughed out loud when he revealed that he didn't know the difference between a scroll and codex. Nevertheless, I am inclined to suspect that he has sources who understand some of the odder things the government has been up to.
“I’m sorry?”
Trish laughed. “Yeah, sounds crazy, I know. What I mean is that it quantified the nation’s emotional state. It offered a kind of cosmic consciousness barometer, if you will.” Trish explained how, using a data field of the nation’s communications, one could assess the nation’s mood based on the “occurrence density” of certain keywords and emotional indicators in the data field. Happier times had happier language, and stressful times vice-versa. In the event, for example, of a terrorist attack, the government could use data fields to measure the shift in America’s psyche and better advise the president on the emotional impact of the event.
“Fascinating,” Katherine said, stroking her chin. “So essentially you’re examining a population of individuals ...as if it were a single organism.”
“Exactly. A metasystem. A single entity defined by the sum of its parts. The human body, for example, consists of millions of individual cells, each with different attributes and different purposes, but it functions as a single entity.”
Katherine nodded enthusiastically. “Like a flock of birds or a school of fish moving as one. We call it convergence or entanglement.”
Trish sensed her famous guest was starting to see the potential of metasystem programming in her own field of Noetics. “My software,” Trish explained, “was designed to help government agencies better evaluate and respond appropriately to wide-scale crises -- pandemic diseases, national tragedies, terrorism, that sort of thing.” She paused. “Of course, there’s always the potential that it could be used in other directions...perhaps to take a snapshot of the national mind-set and predict the outcome of a national election or the direction the stock market will move at the opening bell.”
His first and best thriller, Digital Fortress, offers a description of the NSA's inner workings -- a description which presaged material later made public by Russell Tice and others. (This blog has discussed Tice on several past occasions; see here.) How Brown made these contacts is no secret; he explains the process in a 1998 interview. I would not be entirely surprised to discover that Tice was one of his informants.
My bottom line is this: I think that there are those within the intelligence community who take an interest in the "national temperature," just as the novel states. Social networking sites may function as a gauge. On such sites, average citizens spew forth an endless volcano of private data, the vast majority of which is piffle. But even piffle can deliver important sociological insights, if viewed en masse and from a sufficient distance.
For a lower-tech illustration of my point, think back to the scene in Watchmen (the graphic novel, not the film) in which Ozymandias makes stock market decisions while watching a bank of thirty television monitors relaying video streams from around the world:
"First impressions: Oiled muscleman with machine-gun...cut to pastel bears, valentine hearts. Juxtaposition of wish fulfillment violence and infantile imagery, desire to regress, be free of responsibility. This all says 'war.' We should buy accordingly."Imagine what Ozymandias could do with an infinitely more detailed data-stream, taken directly from millions of consumers/citizens. Imagine software that reduces the metastream into manageable chunks and identifies large movements of attitude and perception. With that kind of data, one could do much more than make investment decisions.
"But sir, we've never bought into munitions..."
"Of course not. You're ignoring the subtext. Increased sexual imagery even in the candy ads. It implies an erotic undercurrent not uncommon in times of war. Remember the baby boom."
"So we should buy into..."
"Into the major erotic video companies. That's short term. Also, we should negotiate controlling shares in selected baby foods and maternity goods manufacturers."
One could control the entire culture.
Consider the birthers and the tea-partyers who trade in weird anti-Obama conspiracy theories. What kind of impact do those theories really have? A poll won't give you the true answer, because even the most intellectually dubious assertions may, if repeated ceaselessly, have a cumulative psycho-social impact.
Such was the lesson of 1994. Many of the claims made about Bill Clinton at that time were simply absurd. But while any individual absurd claim may have swayed only five or ten percent of the population, the sheer ubiquity of such claims contributed to a general sense of unease, fear, angst. That angst translated into a congressional changeover. Even though we had peace and relative prosperity, the American public behaved as though facing military attack and financial ruin.
Ozymandias saw an "oiled muscleman with machine guns" and saw reason to invest in maternity goods. A modern Ozymandias could glance at (say) a hundred random Facebook pages and tell you many un-obvious but accurate things about the American Id.
Let me, in a humble and stumbling fashion, try my own hand at this game.
The popularity of Twilight tells us that a growing number of young American women fantasize about using sex to reward predators. Young American males understand a message which no-one will ever state directly: Act like a predator and desirable girls will want to fuck you. So the males will dress like predators and use the language of predators.
The theme of predation can be considered an "e-meme" -- an emotional meme. E-memes, being irrational, are far more insidious and dangerous than are mere memes, which are intellectual concepts.
A clever manipulator could find ways to channel the predation e-meme into a nationwide desire for war, rebellion, secession.
Tell me your cheap little dreams and I can control you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)