Monday, February 14, 2005

Pease goes for the Throat

Bear with the Throat guessing game just a bit longer. It'll be over soon.

Of all the new writing on the subject, some of the most interesting thoughts have come from Lisa Pease, one of the few writers unafraid to go after the intelligence community's links to Watergate. Those links are obvious to any who have studied the history, yet most commentators refuse to mention them.

Pease directs much of her suspicion at Fred Fielding, who worked in John Dean's office:

I’ve long suspected that Dean knows who Deep Throat is, and that his whole effort to "find" Deep Throat has been his attempt to distance himself from the fact that the leaks were coming from his own office. Woodward described Deep Throat as someone "in the Executive Branch who had access to information at CRP [the Committee to Re-elect the President] as well as the White House." Dean has tried to portray himself as a good guy caught in a bad situation, rather than an outright turncoat working to bring down his employer.
I'm not sure I agree. Pointing toward Dean helps leas us away from the Agency -- and I would not want to justify the revisionist rantings offered by Liddy and his like.

Pease also makes a good case against Bennett, who remains my favorite candidate. Is he sick? I have no idea. But he has looked better.

Rehnquist? Felt? Ehhhhh. Yeah, they're sick. Yeah, they could have done it. But they're so boring.

And as long as we've got a case of the DTs...With all the newfound media attention being paid to Deep Throat, do you think we can drum up some enthusiasm for uncovering Deep Trance? That is the sobriquet of the "inside" source cultivated by John Marks when he wrote The Search for the "Manchurian Candidate", his expose of the CIA's mind control program.

Media breakthrough: The follow up

Thanks to the folks who liked my idea for a cunningly left-wing version of Drudge. And thanks to those who suggested that I run such an enterprise. Alas, right now I haven't the funds to support what would surely prove to be a full-time effort.

Besides, I can't provide cutting-edge entertainment industry piffle. These days, the only people in "the industry" I ever meet are in advertising. Sometimes I run into low-level workers -- like the construction crew member on the original "Blues Brother" movie who is happy to point out where he was sitting in the last shot. (Remember the end credits?)

Not exactly Brad and Jen material...

At any rate: If you like the idea of a site that offers a mirror to Drudge's nature -- a site designed to speak to the unconverted -- all I can ask is that you pass around the post directly below this one. Eventually, it will reach the eyes of someone in a position to make it happen. A small investment ($25,000 a year?) could provide the Democratic party with a new way to reach new eyes.

As for Salon and Raw Story: Both do great work, but both are full-fledged magazines with staffs and lots of original writing. Neither site loads up super-fast -- especially not Raw Story. I'm talking about a links page with only a small amount of original material. Partisanship would be the seasoning, not the stew.

Saturday, February 12, 2005

Media breakthrough: How to preach to someone other than the converted

Folks, I have an idea.

As most of us know, the internet offers the Democratic party its only lifeline. Conservatives control most other media resources –- radio, books, cable news, Fox news, and tax-exempt religious shows which tell the flock how to vote. Network news outlets have been cowed into submission by the accusations of “liberal bias” they receive every time they stray from the RNC line of the day.

Alas, the conserves also control much of the internet. They got their foot in the door early, courtesy of Matt Drudge, whose site still receives a mind-boggling amount of traffic. His is the one conservative site that many Democrats visit, just to see what the other side is up to. Drudge thus provides an effective "injection point" for whatever toxic serum the RNC wants to send into our national bloodstream.

Yet millions of people who visit Drudge each day do not consider it a political site at all.

I'm not kidding: This is the feedback I've heard from folks who are not political animals. They don't go to Drudge because he offers the Bushite line of the day. They go to his site because he offers news.

Not just political news: If wildfires consume much of Arizona or a tsunami attacks much of Asia, Drudge will often get the facts, or something resembling the facts, online before anyone else. Filching his data from mainstream news sources, he beats the mainstreamers at their own game, translating breaking events into HTML minutes before CBS or MSNBC can do so.

You know how Drudge got his start? By offering gossip and piffle about the entertainment industry. He still offers such wares.

His non-political offerings -- celebrity fluff, disaster coverage, human interest stories, tabloid shockers, bogus Biblical artifacts, etc. -- give Drudge all the cover he needs to function as an agent of political subversion.

People visit his site to read the latest about Brad and Jennifer, or about the meteor that wiped out Grants, New Mexico, or about the ancient toothpick used by Jesus himself, or whatever. And on the same page, they receive whatever bit-o-brainwashing Karl Rove wants them to receive that day. At times, the process happens almost subliminally.

And that's what gave me an idea.

We need a site like the Drudge Report.

Many of you must be shrieking: "But we already have one! What about Buzzflash?" Buzzflash is a godsend, and everyone connected with that enterprise deserves political sainthood. Buzzflash has been very good to this humble blog, and to a good many other leftish voices that deserve a wider hearing.

Here's the trouble: No-one who stumbles across Buzzflash would consider that place non-political. Its partisanship is open and honest. It does not offer non-political news. It does not operate subversively. It's not sneaky.

Thus, it does not attract anyone who does not already think as we do.

Again: Drudge got his start by offering gossip and piffle about the entertainment industry. Scarcely seems fair, right? After all, many within that industry favor our side of the political equation. Seems to me that someone on our team should be able to cover that beat more effectively than Drudge ever could.

I propose a new "home page," akin to the Drudge Report. Not necessarily a pretty page. It'll load up super-fast, even for folks using dial-up. You'll see the usual convenient links -- not just to lefty web pages, but to pages people consider fun.

The site would not inundate readers with dozens of new stories each day. Keep it clean, spare, simple.

The stories which do appear would not be political, and least not all of them. This page should be the first place many people go to learn about the meteor that hit Grants, the chicken head that got mixed in with the McNuggets, the boy trapped in a fridge who ate his own foot, and similar daily shocks.

Most of all -- the site could push the envelope when it comes to entertainment industry piffle. The average reader in Idaho does not want to hear a celebrity endorse a political position. (Some believe that a celebrity endorsement can actually hurt a liberal cause.) But Mr. and Ms. Average Reader are often secretly desperate to hear celebrities talk about their sex lives and their cat fights and their noble battles against horrible diseases.

If Hollywood's famous want to help the Democratic cause, they should offer exclusive interviews to this proposed web site. And the stars should not talk about politics. Anything but politics.

Picture it. You go to this page and see a huge headline which reads:

"EXCLUSIVE: JENNIFER REVEALS BRAD HAS THREE TESTICLES!"

Word of mouth will insure millions of hits before noon. The readers will be of all political persuasions. And quite a few of those readers, after receiving their fill of Brad and co., will proceed to click on the headline just below:

"HIDDEN COSTS OF THE NEW SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN -- YOU MAY HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR PARENTS."

And that, my friends, is how to reach a new audience.

Any ideas as to how we can get such a site up and running? It'll take money, though not so very much.

Art note

Have you seen this Vermeer? It was stolen (along with thirteen other fine paintings) from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. Xymphora links to evidence, or at least to allegations, that four of the stolen paintings now are in the possession of the Eurotrashy Jean-Marie Messier, who was, until recently, the head of Vivendi-Universal.

Wasn't the ill-starred Hudson Hawk a Universal pic? That film deals with art theft...and it came out about the same time as the Boston job...

Last (?) words on the Gannon/Guckert scandal

In a previous column, I wondered about the psychological factors that would drive a gay man to support a presidency allied with the Christian Reconstructionists, who -- er, um -- want to kill gays.

Never underestimate the oddity of the human psyche. One out of ten human beings go "stark raving buggo" (as Alan Moore once put it). And that's not even counting the neurotics and eccentrics amongst us.

Even so, we may have reason to suspect that more prosaic factors led Guckert to do what he did. For one thing, everything this man said, wrote and did was so robotic, so scripted, that I cannot easily believe he called his own shots.

Guckert, we now learn, owed some $20,000 in back taxes. This factor would certainly render a man blackmailable.

We must also consider his likely involvement with providing paid studs to Army lads. Some have argued that he really did nothing more than design prostitution websites. But would a professional (or semi-pro) designer maintain such a tawdry-looking home page -- one of those "anyone-can-make-one-of-these" AOL deals? A page that makes no mention of the fact that he also does design work? I don't think so!

He has also given an interview about that classified CIA memo, connected to the Plame scandal. He now he says he did not see or possess. He just knew what its contents were. And how did he know? He refuses to say!

His explanations as to how he got access to the White House poll hold less water than does a sheet of single-ply bathroom tissue. Keep in mind: Randi Rhodes' producer, who has a MA in Journalism and who has held a number of serious jobs in the field, could not get White House press credentials. So who put out the welcome mat to a lying Charlie Nobody from an unknown web site?

Congresspersons John Conyers (bless his heart) and Louise Slaughter (bless her heart) are pressing for a full investigations.

Howard Kurtz and (I am told) Sean Hannity have tried to picture Jeff Gannon as the "victim" of bloggers. Oddly, they made no such exculpatory remarks about Dan Rather -- event though Dan never lied and "Jeff" lied constantly. Even so, few in the allegedly "liberal" mainstream media want to take this story any further.

Keep in mind that Hannity was positioning Gannon (I wonder how Beavis and Butthead would interpret those last four words) to become a regular cable news talking head. This, even though Gannon's only gig was for a web site that probably receives even less traffic than this one boasts.

Is that how the game works?

Do the conserves find someone open to a little blackmail and then place him in position to become a major media figure? For the rest of his life, he'd be open to manipulation, parroting the script, literally republishing GOP press releases...

How many cable "news" propagandists have a similar history? How many writers for Regnery got into the game via this route?

And if Drudge saw fit to mention any of this, I missed it!

So how can we use this episode further? Either get Guckert to 'fess up, or find evidence from another source that he was blackmailed. The moment the "extortion" theory gains widespread acceptance, a minor scandal becomes a major one.

The Throat-stakes

Many of my readers aren't interested in the identity of Deep Throat, but the guessing game remains one of my favorites. One fanciful notion I've always found appealing holds that Watergate ringleader E. Howard Hunt was himself Deep Throat.

The chronology dictates against that idea, of course -- Hunt was found guilty in December of 1972 and served 33 months in jail; Woodward met Deep Throat on various occasions in 1973. Other than that, Hunt is a weirdly attractive candidate -- a smoker with a literary bent, privy to all sorts of inside CIA knowledge, and (some have alleged) secretly out to undermine Nixon.

Robert Bennett remains my favorite candidate. Senator Sam Ervin's Select Committee on Watergate also fingered Bennett as DT. Here's a bit from that committee's report:

Bennett took relish in implicating Colson in Hunt's activities in the press while protecting the agency at the same time. It is further noted that Bennett was feeding stories to Bob Woodward who was 'suitably grateful'; that he was making no attribution to Bennett; and that he was protecting Bennett and Mullen and company.
Pretty damning, if ya asks me.

Throat-spotters usually get mired in the game of who-knew-what-when. But Bennett was CIA, and the CIA knew everything as it happened. They had bugged the White House.

If I'm right -- and if Woodward reveals Bennett as DT -- will the CIA's role in bringing down Nixon receive much mention in the press? Possibly. Today's political situation is very strange, and the neo-cons have taken an adversarial attitude toward the Agency.

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Is "Poppy" Bush Deep Throat? The CIA connection to Watergate

Rumor has it that Deep Throat, the as-yet unnamed inside source who helped Woodward and Bernstein uncover the Watergate scandal, is ill. Woodward has promised to reveal the name when Throat dies.

At the same time, Watergate author and Woodward critic Adrian Havill (who previously argued that Throat was a composite character) has recently offered the startling conclusion that the ultimate bean-spiller was none other than George H.W. Bush, former president and father to the creature currently skulking in the White House. No publicly-available evidence indicates that the elder Bush in ill-health. He has been making appearances with Bill Clinton pursuant to tsunami relief, and looks fit. On the other hand, he is elderly.

Since the guessing game may end soon, I had best take this opportunity to try my hand at it.

First: Although the Poppy theory has problems, it tends to grow on one. The same idea had -- very fleetingly -- occurred to me some time ago, when I was sifting through the CIA connections to Watergate. I dismissed the notion because certain details do not fit.

Woodward makes much of the fact that Deep Throat was a heavy smoker; we have no indication that Bush ever smoked. As Ambassador to the United Nations, Bush lived in New York during the crucial time period of 1971-1973; Benjamin Bradlee has said that we might be able to figure out who DT was by checking which of the suspects was in Washington on the dates mentioned. Woodward glancingly refers to Throat as having worked in the Old Executive Office Building; I'm not sure if that detail ever applied to Bush. Woodward has said that Hal Holbrook's portrayal of Throat in the film version of All the President's Men came rather close to capturing the manner of the man; nothing in the Holbrook performance suggests Bush -- at least, not to my eyes.

During the one Woodward/Throat meeting in a lower-class bar, Throat allegedly wiped his mouth with the back of his hand. While I can easily picture Bush using this covert meeting as an excuse to go slumming with the peasants, I can't see him practicing poor table manners.

Woodward also insists that Throat had a wide knowledge of literature. As for Bush...well, no comment.

On the other hand...

A number of people believe that Woodward emphasized the "chain smoker" description with rather too heavily. Perhaps that rather theatrical detail was a minor deception, intended to send people looking in the wrong direction.

Havill has found evidence that Bush often attended functions in D.C. during this period.

In his book, Woodward reports that could not reach a note that Throat left for him. Woodward is five foot, ten inches tall; GHWB is notably taller. The book describes Throat as somewhat gaunt -- a description applicable to Bush in that period, judging from the photos.

Deep Throat's reported behavior may give us a clue. Throat, we are told, had difficulty concealing his feelings -- and as we all know, Bush has certainly had his excitable, fidgety moments. Throat had a weakness for gossip yet tried not to confuse rumor and truth, and he did not attempt to inflate his own importance in the scheme of things. These descriptors "feel right" when applied to Bush -- at least, to the Bush of that time period.

The elder Bush has often tried to combat his "upper-class twit" image by indulging in macho activities (he's one of the few octogenarian skydivers), a factor which may explain his somewhat puerile affection for espionage tradecraft. Throat's insistence on meetings in parking garages, not to mention the elaborate signaling system he used to initiate contact with Woodward, have struck many as a little over-the-top. That sort of James Bonding would have appealed to Poppy's sense of adventure.

A side-note: The signalling system involved a flowerpot on Woodward's balcony, a device which has given rise to a mini-controversy. Since that balcony faced an inner courtyard, and since the building was secured, how could Throat keep an eye out for this signal on a daily basis? The mystery is resolved if we presume that Throat himself had an apartment in the same complex. I wonder if Bush rented a place "in town" for use during his many D.C. jaunts? The idea is not outside the realm of possibility, especially if we credit the persistent rumor that he had a mistress.

Throat and Woodward were "old friends" at the beginning of Watergate. Did Woodward and Bush meet during this period? Both Woodward and Bush went to Yale, although they attended at different times. (Bush belonged to the Skull and Bones fraternity, while Woodward was tapped for the slightly less-prestigious Book and Snake.) Other factors hint of a tie between the Washington Post reporter and our ruling family -- for example, Woodward gained unusual access to Dubya's White House. More telling still: During Poppy's reign, the president's aides once transported classified documents directly to Woodward's home. As Havill notes, the former president later wrote a very chummy letter to the nation's most famous journalist, praising his Watergate work -- an odd attitude for a politician who usually despised both the press and leaks.

In the early 1970s, both Bush and Woodward possessed still-mysterious links to the intelligence community. And that is where my real interest in the Throat enigma centers.

Oddly, the CIA connection has not figured in any of the current discussion of Bush as a possible Throat candidate. Havill makes no reference to the intelligence community's role in Watergate; he posits that Bush turned against Nixon because the latter had dropped hints that Bush would replace Agnew in 1972. A silly idea, if you ask me.

(Even so, I have no doubt that if Bush is outed as Throat, the "veep-and-switch" theory of his motive will become the official dogma.)

If we keep the intelligence community out of the picture, as so many writers insist on doing, we have no way of knowing how DT -- if Bush was he -- would know so much about Nixon's secrets. How, for example, would Poppy gain such early awareness of gaps in the Watergate tapes? How would he acquire foreknowledge of the administration's plans to subpoena the notes of the Washington Post reporters? How could he have access to current FBI reports on Watergate?

Officially, Bush had no connection to the CIA until that fine day in 1976 when Gerry Ford tapped him to run the agency. Only ninnies take the official story seriously. Although no-one alleges that "Poppy" received a regular paycheck from the Company, it is an open secret that the elder Bush -- like a number of other businessmen from prominent families -- had, prior to becoming DCI, aided the intelligence community on a number of occasions.

As for Bob Woodward: Many younger scandal buffs seem to be under the erroneous impression that his links to the intel world were first revealed in the egregious "Silent Coup," a work of revisionist right-wing propaganda that belongs in the trash heap next to Ann Coulter's attempt to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy. Woodward's background was, in fact, first published in Jim Hougan's masterly 1983 volume "Secret Agenda." (Hougan now writes terrific spy novels under the pen name John Case.)

As the communications duty officer for the Chief of Naval Operations, Robert Weylander, Woodward handled top-secret traffic from the White House, the CIA, the DIA, and other agencies. He worked both in Washington and aboard The Wright, a special ship dubbed "the floating Pentagon." According to Hougan:

...while in the Navy, Woodward became part of an elite group and, in doing so, tapped into an astonishing grapevine of sources in the military, on Capitol Hill, in the foreign policy-making establishment and in the intelligence community. That is, during his year at the Pentagon, he was one of a handful of officers chosen by the Navy to brief the government's most important intelligence officials on events and operations around the world.
Writing more speculatively, Havill adds:

Was Bob Woodward ever a free-lance or retained Central Intelligence Agency liaison officer, informant or operative . . . ? This author got various forms of affirmative opinions from intelligence experts. It would explain his assignment to the Wright and his misleading statements to interviewers. It would make understandable his being able to get out of going to Vietnam in 1968, his extension for an additional year at the Pentagon, his being chosen to brief at the White House and his denials as well. It would also help explain his subsequent high-level friendships with leaders of the U.S. military and the CIA.
Most Throat-spotters presume that Woodward and "DT" became friends during the reporter's previous life as a young intelligence briefer.

All of which leads us to this fascinating poser: Was Throat a spook?

Or, to phrase the matter more delicately, did he interact with Woodward at the behest of any faction of the intel community?

Jim Hougan is (erroneously) believed to have fingered Alexander Haig as DT; in fact, he discusses this theory only to discount it. Hougan's actual conclusion: "Deep Throat is probably a spook -- someone in the intelligence community -- with sources in high places."

Secret Agenda tentatively makes a nod in the direction of veteran intelligence chieftain Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, a suggestion which may yet prove valid. Inman, in his mid-70s, retired from SAIC about 15 months ago; I have no idea as to his current health status.

Woodward himself has given divergent hints on this score. In a 1989 Playboy interview, a writer for Playboy asked him: "Do you resent the implication by some critics that your sources on Watergate -- among them the fabled Deep Throat -- may have been people in the intelligence community?"

Woodward answered: "I resent it because it's not true." Yet he when on to add:

But let me just say that this suggestion that we were being used by the intelligence community was of concern to us at the time and afterward. When somebody first wrote the article saying about me, 'Wait a minute; this is somebody in an intelligence agency who doesn't like Nixon and is trying to get him out,' I took that seriously.
The obvious implication: While Woodward may not have considered his source an espionage professional, he did have reason to wonder if Throat operated on behalf of one sector of American intelligence.

George H.W. Bush -- linked to spook-land, though technically not employed by it -- was just the sort of fellow to provide services of that sort.

Does other evidence indicate that Throat acted as a CIA cut-out? Plenty.

Woodward's writings assiduously kept the CIA out of the Watergate mess, even though a number of the Watergate burglars had Agency backgrounds. After a phony "retirement" from the CIA, E. Howard Hunt was employed by the Robert R. Mullen Company, which provided cover for CIA operations, particularly those involving the Howard Hughes organization. For reasons never made clear, the Washington Post refused to mention Mullen's links to the CIA until the very last days of the Nixon era, when the front company was closing up shop. This, despite the fact that other sources had made the information public.

For that matter, Woodward has never discussed the oft-heard theory that former CIA man James McCord intentionally botched the Watergate burglary in order to help engineer Nixon's downfall. McCord has been known to make lawsuit noises against promulgators of that theory, so I will here note only that some very smart researchers -- including Hougan -- take the notion seriously.

Was Bob Woodward protecting the CIA?

Let's take one further look at the Mullen company. Hunt's "boss" at Mullen was a very interesting man named Robert Bennett -- who, as we shall see, is also a good Throat candidate. Bennett answered to a CIA case officer named Martin Lukowski. Lukowskie wrote a memo for the record which offers a rare glimpse into the CIA's attitude toward Watergate -- and toward Bob Woodward:

Mr Bennett said that when E. Howard Hunt was connected with the incident [the burglary], reporters from the Washington Post and he thought the "Washington Star" tried to establish a "Seven Days in May" scenario with the Agency attempting to establish control over both the Republican and Democratic Parties so as to be able to take over the country. Mr. Bennett said that he was able to convince them that course was nonsense...
The reporters for the Washington Post are, obviously, Woodward and Bernstein. This passage clearly indicates that the writers originally pursued a CIA angle (albeit a somewhat far-fetched one) and only later decided to keep references to the Agency out of their reportage.

Another CIA memo to the Deputy Director for Plans tells us:

Mr Bennett said also that he has been feeding stories to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post with the understanding that there be no attribution to Bennett.
Is Bennett Throat? He's tall, thin, and now a leading member of the Senate. I have no information as to whether he has any current health problems.

For me, the Throatstakes come down to two main candidates: Bennett and Bush.

Bennett fits the bill well -- especially if we allow ourselves to believe that Woodward allowed himself to believe that Bennett was not a CIA employee. Bennett's subsequent political career explains why he would not want anyone to know about his sojourn as Throat: Discussion of that adventure would lead to discussion of his spook days. Many voters are nervous about the idea of espionage agents becoming involved in politics.

On the other hand, I am growing fonder by the minute of the idea that Bush was tapped by someone in the Agency to act as a cut-out. Perhaps we can scry here an explanation as to why Woodward pictured Throat as literary-minded chain-smoker -- a description that calls to mind such well-known spooks as James Jesus Angleton and Cord Meyer. Woodward may have been offering hints as to the man who was running Bush.

The more important question: If Throat spoke for the CIA, where did the CIA get information about the inner workings of the Nixon White House? And why would anyone from the Agency want Nixon out?

Regarding the first question: There were rumors at the time that the Agency had literally bugged the oval office. I hope to take a closer look at those allegations in a forthcoming post.

Monday, February 07, 2005

A vote for "fusion tyranny"

I had rather hoped that when I resumed blogging, I would be able to speak about something other than vote fraud. But the news keeps piling up...

Snohomish County: This new analysis has implications that go far beyond the region under scrutiny. The authors are Paul R. Leto, an attorney who served on the Board of Governors of his state's Bar Association, and Jeffrey Hoffman, Ph.D., a physicist. Neither writer is a statistician (a fact which rightists will no doubt seize upon), although Hoffman seems to have a good grasp of that discipline and they had input from a professional mathematician.

Their argument speaks for itself. Analysis of voting pattern show that Sequoia touch-screen votes heavily favored one party (guess which) while optical scan votes favored the other; no other variable seems to account for the discrepancy.

Sequoia's managers, you will recall, have been accused (and in one case, convicted) of bribery of public officials.

The Leto/Hoffman paper makes a number of other pertinent points. I'll note but four:

1. Machines which recently had their CPUs "repaired" (how the devil do you repair a CPU?) developed a mysterious tendency to spew out Republican votes. (Note: The authors may have confused the terms "CPU" and "motherboard" in a section of their paper.)

2. Touch screen voting was supposed to help eradicate undervoting, yet undervoting remained four times the national average in minority districts of New Mexico using the technology.

3. The low rate of undervoting in Snohomish County may be connected to the numerous reports of "pre-selections" for Bush. (And that, in turn, may be connected to point 1, above.)

4. Sequoia requires -- for no reason I can discern -- that its machines have their power cords daisy chained. Is it possible to transmit data through the power line? In a word: Yes. Sequoia's enigmatic insistence on plugging the machines into the juice in a certain way may indicate the presence of a hidden network.

That last point has boggling possibilities. Even if we make sure that no election machine contains a modem, how can we be sure that outsiders aren't "talking" to the computers using this covert route? If the devices are plugged in, manipulators can plug in to their data.

Even if the machine, as originally designed, does not contain internal devices capable of transmitting and receiving data via the power cord, such a device can be easily installed during "repairs."

Shelley: People are starting to catch on to the possibility that California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was railroaded out of office because of his staunch opposition to Diebold and touch screen voting. (If you haven't read the post below, you may want to do so now.)

We now have a sample letter of protest, which contains a defense of Shelley. It's a little too long-winded (not that I'm in a position to carp about such a thing!), but it makes some excellent points.

The "sexual harassment" charge against Shelley, mysteriously unspecified in most news accounts, apparently amounts to little. He lost his temper at an employee and used foul language. Not an advisable action, of course -- but such an outburst hardly justifies an attempt by the media to frame the poor fellow as a sex-crazed fiend.

And if that charge turns out to be mere hype, we have every reason to suspect that the other charges have been blown out of proportion.

(Can I be accused of sexual harassment because I used the word "blown" in the previous sentence?)

The battle over the new California Secretary of State has spawned an important web site called Ban the Machine. I advise you to check them out.

John McLaughlin: I never much cared for him or for his band of stuffed shirts. But he's old and cantankerous enough to allow himself the occasional snarl at the leash, and he comes from the William F. Buckley wing of the conservative movement. (God help me, but I miss the days when guys like Buckley constituted the Face of the Enemy.) At any rate, McLaughlin recently said on his program that Bush won Ohio by 70,000 votes. Which leads to this simple question: Who handed McLaughlin that number, which differs from the official tally?

Iraq: The subject of the Iraqi election is too massive for me to address here. Bottom line: If we can't trust the numbers in this country, surely we cannot trust the vote over there. The video footage of democracy-hungry voters in line was taken in a mere five polling stations which the American military erected as Potemkin villages. Initial announcements of a turnout exceeding 70 percent turned out to be purely imaginary. American soldiers transported the ballot boxes. International election observers did not dare to observe most of the country. The whole election was, in short, a shoddy masquerade.

Nevertheless, even the ostensibly "liberal" media organs described this sham as the most satisfying example of democracy since Pericles.

Dot Commies: Skeptical articles by Arabic writers on the Iraq "election" have described the Iraqi Communist Party as "a lackey organization of the US invaders." This story, for example, alleges that Iraqi CP members functioned as "extras" in propaganda footage of gleefully teeming polling stations. (The Bushites used such Hollywood trickery before, when the statue fell.)

The administration's alliance with the local bolshies may astound many, but I see in it the continuance of a pattern. Last time I checked, China is still ruled by a communist party. The Bush regime, by allowing cheap Chinese imports to flood our country, has helped that country become an economic powerhouse. The administration has rattled sabres against North Korea, but I suspect that those sabres will remain un-drawn. The neo-con movement contains within its ranks a number of former Trotskyites.

In an earlier post, I called fundamentalism the "third menace" -- Fascism and Communism being menaces one and two. The historical connections between the first and third Menaces are fairly well-known to those who bother to read history. Now I'm beginning to wonder: Are there subterranean linkages between menaces two and three?

I propose a name for this phenomenon: "Fusion tyranny."

Vote fraud foe gets shafted

What the hell. I'll be working all night anyways. Might as well take a few minutes off to blog a bit...

Those of you outside California may not have followed the news about Kevin Shelley, the Democratic Secretary of State who resigned due a mounting number of ethics probes. The story could well have international implications.

Let me first make clear that I have no idea if Shelley is guilty of the charges leveled against him. Even if we presume the worst (and I do not), those charges speak of the sort of behavior considered inconsequential in a Republican but damnable in a Dem.

Sexual harassment? Frankly, it's hard to imagine how any partisan of Der Gropenfuehrer could dare to express outrage over that. Favorable treatment to contributors? Misappropriation of funds? Sounds like a typical Republican resume...

But Shelley is a Democrat, and thus state investigators have pounced on allegations of the sort of minor corruption which, in a Republican, usually receives the wink-and-a-nod treatment.

Arnold Schwarzenegger will now pick the man who will run California's elections. Shelley's departure means that our state will receive a Ken Blackwell or a Katherine Harris of its very own.

Incidentally: Lovely Kathy, as Daniel Hopsicker informs us, has connections to one of the shady "flight schools" attended by the 9/11 hijackers. A ton of evidence indicates that those "schools" are actually covers for covert ops and drug smuggling. But no Florida state investigator will ever look into those links. Katherine Harris is a Republican; she may do that which a Kevin Shelley may not.

As for Ken Blackwell: This piece outlines his many known crimes, and directs our attention to some newly-discovered ones. Slush funds, anyone? Yet Blackwell will prosper. He may do that which a Kevin Shelley may not.

Whatever else one might say about Shelley, he helped keep the state's voting equipment Diebold-free. See, for example, this story from 2003, which details his concern for maintaining a trustworthy system:

In April, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned a type of Diebold touch screen in California and took the unusual step of asking the Attorney General to investigate both civil and criminal actions against the company for fraud...

Since then, Kevin Shelley has become America's leader in ensuring there is a paper trail to prevent voting fraud. When CNN needs a comment on election fraud, they interview Kevin Shelley.
No wonder they went after this guy!

Don't expect his replacement to maintain a similar attitude. Arnie's appointee will surely go shopping for new voting equipment at the Diebold or ES&S showrooms.

Under such circumstances, can California remain blue?

Much of the state has been turning ominously conservative in recent years. Only the populous, prosperous coastal areas remain Democratic; the deserts and rural areas are salmon pink, if not stoplight red. It's not hard to understand why: When you drive outside the larger cities, your car radio emits nothing but Jesusmaniac chatter and ultra-conservative propaganda.

The most conservative areas of California are located around the dwindling number of military bases. Bush is, at present, relocating California's bases and allied industries to the more G.O.P.-friendly states. Even the China Lake Naval Weapons Center (a semi-mysterious facility larger than Rhode Island) may close up shop.

The question of California's political future comes down to this: When the military jobs dry up and workers start losing their houses, will they finally, finally turn against Bush and Arnold?

The radio rightists will, of course, do their damnedest to blame Democratic legislators for our current and forthcoming troubles. If even a single liberal politician remains in California, all the state's ills will be considered his fault. Or her fault.

But even the formidable powers of the reactionary media machine may fail when the chumps in the audience finally notice the lack of a roof separating their heads from the rain. Hungry people may weary of being told to place all trust in Jesus, Dubya, and the Terminator.

Bottom line: Although the state has taken on a dangerously scarlet tint, a tint which may deepen, I suspect that this shift to the right will reach a natural limit. Although the left/right gap may narrow, California will probably not experience a party shift in 2008.

That is -- if the election is run fairly.

With the Terminator picking the tabulator, we can presume that fairness will not prevail. Republicans will surely "win" any election that is even somewhat close.

And if the Democrats cannot win in California, they cannot win at all.

Incidentally, word has it that the Governator may replace Shelley with Mary Bono, the former wife of Sonny Bono. With such a fine, upstanding Bono behind him, Arnie will surely have a smile on his face.

Friday, February 04, 2005

Bulge

(My headlines keep getting filthier, don't they?)

There's little point in my directing your attention to a story that Buzzflash has pushed so heavily, since nearly everyone reading these words also reads that site. But just in case you missed it, David Lindorff has THE last word on the bulge, and how it might have changed the election.

Uh...David? Maybe the controversy did change the election. With computerized voting, how would we ever know?

Prostitution

No, I'm still not able to blog as regularly as before.

But I did want to thank all the replies to my previous piece on ESP; I hope to reply to each missive soon. Those who shared similar experiences were brave. Those who counseled me on the vagaries of memory should know that I've read fairly extensively on that topic. I hope that I can trust my memory of the incident in question, but I'm as human as the next fellow.

At least we have one prophecy on the record ahead of time, eh wot?

On to today's topic: Prostitution.

Many of you already have heard of a noteworthy story published in the Telegraph. An unnamed unemployed woman in Germany -- where prostitution became legal two years ago -- was offered a job by a brothel. She turned the offer down. Since the law stipulates that anyone who has received unemployment benefits for over a year must take any job, her benefits were cut off.

This tale has aroused much anguished commentary, particularly from those who noted that homosexual brothels are also legal in Germany. When the German government sticks it to you, they mean business.

The trouble is: Although Snopes has yet to rule on the matter, the widely-reported yarn may well be a hoax. This German-language article contains information on the fairly recent legalization of prostitution in that country; according to the Babelfish translation, the piece includes this sentence:

Nevertheless no woman can be instructed to transact sexual services against her will after the prostitution law.
(For once, the Babelfish version is easy to comprehend.)

Even so, both the right and the left have seized upon this tale as an excuse to commit sociology.

The goosesteppers over at the Free Republic are oddly conflicted. On one hand, they like the idea of using extreme measures to force people off the dole. On the other hand, some Freepers have screamed the usual nonsense about Christianity being "outlawed" in Germany and/or the EU.

(I presume the "church tax" is still paid by every German citizen, even by the atheists and brothel-owners. In civilized nations, religion is unpopular, but not outlawed. History teaches us that gods die when they are ignored, not when they are opposed.)

The Democratic Underground made references to gender discrimination. I think these comments were meant to be humorous or highly speculative, but the Freepers took them at face value.

The DU discussion is (of course) more reasonable, and more skeptical. Still, they too seem conflicted, though for different reasons.

Although I find the "brothel" tale unlikely, the fable does bring up an interesting question. Which jobs can a person on welfare turn down? Can a Jew or a Muslim be forced to work in a slaughterhouse that processes swine? Can a vegetarian be forced to work in a restaurant that serves meat?

Let's say that my initial instincts are wrong, and that the story reported in the Telegraph is true. Can a German woman who has worked as a sex worker previously (perhaps as a stripper) turn down an offer of employment from someone who wants her to do something she considers repugnant? What if the Incredible Hulk wanted to pay a woman $2000 dollars a month to function as his anal sex slave? Would the German government say "Well, liebchen, a job is a job..."?

(Hey, I'm just engaging in a little blue-sky conjecture here.)

Bottom line: Can anyone confirm the truth or falsehood of the forced-to-work-in-a-brothel story?

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Prophecy

I still cannot return to regular posting. Give me another week or so.

Right now, I'm going to make a confession. I'm going to put a troubling matter "on the record." I do so with some hesitation, since the business under discussion could ruin whatever small reputation I may have gained.

The question of the day comes down to this: Do you believe in ESP?

I grew up immersed in Fox Mulder-ish lore (Tom Delay wasn't kidding when he said that sites like mine belonged to the "X-Files" wing of the Democratic party), but over the years, my attitude slid into skepticism. I've met a lot of people who claimed to have had preternatural experiences or abilities. These claimants invariably turned out to be irritating and unreliable.

Magic? UFOs? Ghosts? Visions of the Virgin Mary? The internet and your local library abound with many a wild story, but proof remains unobtainable. Even the best-attested incidents become less impressive upon close examination.

I thus segued into cynicism and curmudgeon-hood.

(Yes, my ladyfriend and I have a tradition of dining out at "haunted" restaurants on Halloween, but we do so out of a sense of romance and fun. We don't expect to see anything.)

Curmudgeon that I became (and remain), I still tended to place ESP in the "maybe" category, if only because Dr. J.B. Rhine and other scientists have claimed to validate the existence of the phenomenon in the laboratory. (By the by: Did you know that Sir Richard Burton coined the term "ESP"?) On the other hand, scientists such as Dr. Susan Blackmore have persuasively disputed the existence of the phenomenon. (See here and here; if you'll click the latter link, you'll discover that the hard-headed Dr. Blackmore sports a rather surprising look these days.)

As I said: I came to view ESP as a maybe. Not a likelihood, but a possibility.

And then I met a woman (no, not my current ladyfriend) who transformed that "maybe" into an "almost certainly." Here's the catch: While this woman was able to prove her ability to me, she could not do so in a way that allows me to prove it to you.

That's the hell of it. By her own account, whatever ability she once possessed always manifested itself in spurts -- rare spurts. She could never turn on the spigot at will.

Remember the old Chuck Jones cartoon starring "Michigan J. Frog"? The amphibian who could sing "Hello, my baby" -- but only to an audience of one? The moment an audience showed up, the magic stopped.

Hate to admit it, but this story is one of those stories.

I hope I haven't yet alienated all of my readers. Because in this case, the singing frog predicted World War III.

The wake-up call

In July of 1999, the woman with whom I was romantically involved at that time -- call her Gabrielle -- woke up, woke me up, and announced that she had just had an exceptionally vivid dream. A prophetic dream.

A dream in which airplanes flew into the World Trade Center -- "or buildings like the World Trade Center."

I had met Gabrielle over the internet; she was visiting me from out of state. As mentioned earlier, she claimed to have had psychic experiences, especially when younger, although those experiences had tapered off in recent years. The stories she told me about the earlier days were weird and fascinating -- and, of course, unprovable. I made no secret of my stance on ESP: I had become a cynic, but even so...maybe. She understood that, for the most part, I was now much more of a Scully than a Mulder.

And that's why I immediately looked for a conventional explanation for her nightmarish vision of disaster striking the World Trade Center.

I immediately presumed that her dreaming mind had merely processed images from a half-forgotten news account. "Maybe you're thinking about the time a jet crashed near LAX," I suggested, referring to an incident from the 1980s.

(Nota bene: For purposes of readability, this account will include snatches of dialogue. The quotes are as exact as memory allows. Obviously, I didn't have a tape recorder running.)

No, she answered. Not low buildings. "That happens later. It won't be what they say it is."

The main vision, she insisted, involved skyscrapers. "Like the World Trade Center."

She saw people jumping. Then the buildings would tumble to the ground.

Gabrielle spoke to me for about twenty minutes or so. Her voice and her eyes were odd. She seemed hypnotized. I never saw her act quite that way on any other occasion.

To be honest, I must specify that, throughout this conversation, she almost always referred to buildings "like" the World Trade Center; she confessed that she could not even be sure that the event would take place in New York City, although she did describe a cloud of smoke over the water. "I think it is the World Trade Center," she said at one point.

Naturally, I wanted to know who would commit such an act. "It won't be who they say it is," she answered.

She mentioned that there would be a war in Iraq as a result, even though Iraq would not be responsible. (She also mentioned Saudi Arabia, but the reference was quite vague. I could not discern how that country figured into this scenario.)

Then I brought up an unpleasant matter that had dominated a previous series of allegedly prophetic dreams.

What comes next

Before continuing, I should fill in some more backstory.

In the mid-1990s, before she met me, Gabrielle had had a series of troubling dreams depicting a "small" nuclear explosion in Chicago. In each dream, she viewed the event from a closer perspective. In one dream, she saw it from the point of view of a reporter flying in a commercial airliner not far from the event.

I was not the only person to whom Gabrielle described these dreams, which she considered visionary and predictive. She and I had discussed these dreams at some length (via IRC) well before we ever met. (I may have a log of the chat on a disc somewhere, although I have yet to find it.) I believe she discussed these forecasts with members of her family, although the person with whom she confided at greatest length passed away recently.

She stopped having those dreams a year or two before she met me, and presumed (for whatever reason) that she would never again have a major psychic experience.

That presumption seems to have been premature. Here she was, in a trance-like state after having awakened from a vivid dream of the the World Trade Center's collapse.

Naturally, I wanted to know if the New York event was connected with the nuclear event in Chicago. Yes, she said. In a way. But the explosion in Chicago would happen later.

(Incidentally, Gabrielle spent her life in a small town in the Pacific northwest, and had not traveled to either New York or Chicago -- in fact, she almost never left her home state. Oddly enough, I've never visited either of those two cities myself, although I've seen many other parts of the country.)

Would the same people be responsible for both events, I asked?

Not really, she answered, although the events are linked. In both cases, she emphasized, "it won't be who they say it is."

"Terrorists?"

"Yes and no. It's like people from the government are involved. Or at least they know about it."

She said that the public would be told that Iran was responsible for the Chicago event. "After that, it's World War Three."

She intimated that things would not play out the way "they" planned, and that the war would spin out of all control.

I asked for more details about the "small" nuclear event in Chicago. She mentioned the Sears tower.

Water played a role in the scenario she envisioned; the device would be transported via boat. I reminded her that Chicago is on one of the Great Lakes. (For some reason, I couldn't remember which one!) She said that the boat would not be on a lake. "You know those movable bridges?" she asked. One of those bridges had something to do with the event.

"You know that picture of the farmer and his wife?" she asked. I took this as a reference to Grant Wood's American Gothic, which I once saw on loan in San Francisco. (Incidentally, the woman in the painting is actually the man's sister.) I vaguely recalled that the work's "home" is in Chicago. She felt that the painting would be destroyed by the blast, and that we would subsequently see the image reproduced ad infinitum in news accounts.

(One doesn't need ESP to foresee how the lost work would take on symbolic, even propagandistic, value.)

Since her unusual trance-like state might never occur again, I attempted to pinpoint a date for these events. She could give neither year nor month, although she insisted that the Chicago event would occur after the fall of the skyscrapers in New York City. (She did not intimate how long after; for some reason, I came under the impression that the two events would occur within fairly quick order.)

"Who is the president when the bomb goes off in Chicago?" I asked.

A long pause. Then she asked: "Is there someone named Kerry?"

I told her that there were two guys with that name in the senate, and that she was probably thinking of Bob Kerrey, who had run against Bill Clinton in the 1992 primaries. But I also told her that a new Kerrey run was damn near impossible, since Gore would surely have the nomination sewed up.

Keep in mind: This conversation took place in late July of 1999. I thought entirely in terms of the 2000 election.

I decided to try to get at the chronology from another angle. "Who's the president when the planes hit buildings in New York?"

"Bush," she said. That answer made sense. I didn't like it, but it made sense.

I asked if she foresaw a match-up between Bob Kerrey and George W. Bush in 2000. She seemed puzzled, and said no. That path of inquiry seemed exhausted, so I dropped it.

"When the bomb goes off in Chicago, do you see snow?" She didn't. It won't happen in the winter.

She said there may be still another event on the west coast -- perhaps in Los Angeles, perhaps elsewhere. This event would also involve another tall building. But she had no other details this incident, and felt less certain of this business than of the disasters in New York and Chicago.

Then she fell back asleep! And I mean fell. She plopped back down on the bed, and was unconscious within seconds.

Aftermath

When she awoke, she had little recollection of the dream or of the subsequent conversation.

That night, I took her to see downtown Los Angeles, to see if any of the buildings in that area "resonated." None of the sights there seemed to coalesce with her vague forebodings of a West Coast event, although she did spend a long time drinking in the cityscape visible from the overpass leading to the Bonaventure. (That sight must have made quite an impression on a small-town girl.)

Later, we visited San Francisco. While dining on Fisherman's Wharf, she told me that the west coast event would happen in that city, if it happened at all. The Transamerica building and the Bank of America building both seemed to unsettle her, particularly the latter. Perhaps her reaction can be ascribed to the unusual architecture. I should emphasize that she is not a "sensitive" person who becomes unsettled easily.

Our relationship ended shortly afterward.

The fault was entirely mine. If my readers knew just how badly I treated her, those who bear some affection for my writings would form a new opinion. That's one reason I've always hesitated to discuss Gabrielle's forecast: Anyone attempting to contact her for verification purposes would hear quite an earful about what a bastard I was. My behavior at that time was inexcusable; the world need know nothing more.

Before the break-up occurred, the thought occurred to me that I should describe her "prophecy" (if I may use that word) online before the event, just in case something really did happen to the World Trade Center or the Sears building. But at the time, her description seemed too vague, too contradictory. The fact that she had mentioned both Kerry/Kerrey and Bush as presidents had led me to dismiss the likelihood of all that she had told me. I simply did not consider the possibility that the two "main events" might be widely separated in time.

Here's where we encounter the "Michigan J. Frog" effect.

I mentioned the prediction of a strike against the World Trade Center to only one friend before the event. Alas, he does not now recall my having done so. Of course, after September 11, 2001, I told a number of people about Gabrielle's prediction, and I described her forecast of a "small" nuclear bomb taking out the Sears Tower.

Gabrielle married a man much better than I am. He's a rational-minded "Skeptical Inquirer" type, a member of the local atheists' society, and rather opposed to all talk of ESP and similar matters (or so I gather). Consequently, Gabrielle does not now like to discuss her previous claims of psychic experiences.

Some months ago, I contacted her via email, and wrote up a lengthy description of the conversation described above. In one reply, she said she had only vague recollection of a dream involving the World Trade Center. In a second response, she denied that she had ever had such a predictive dream, and she does not remember any part of the conversation that followed.

Her message was rather testy. Lord knows I gave her good reason to feel that way.

(At least she still admits that she once had a series of dreams involving the Chicago event. Of course, she has discussed those dreams with several people.)

Perhaps the prankster gods of fate have decreed that "proof" of ESP always comes in an individualized fashion. Gabrielle convinced me that the ability exists. But I cannot convince you. If you have not experienced anything like the incident related above, you should be extremely skeptical of this story.

So why did I write this column?

Certainly not because I plan to turn this blog into a forum for discussion of ESP! Frankly, I hope never to mention the topic again.

Nevertheless...ever since the "jets flying into skyscrapers" forecast came true, I've believed that the Chicago event would also come to pass. Perhaps the "West coast" event will take place as well, although Gabrielle seemed far less certain of that prediction.

Although I've made fleeting references to the Chicago event in previous posts, I've never described in detail why I believe a bomb will go off in that area.

Today, of course, we have an administration which has sent unmistakable signals of its intention to conquer Iran. Cheney has pretty much confessed that there are plans afoot to have Israel launch a strike against a putative Iranian nuclear facility. If -- when -- such an airstrike occurs, most Americans will naturally presume that Iranians deserve the blame for any subsequent terror strike within America's borders.

Progressives will no doubt frame the debate in a shortsighted fashion. They will claim that Bush/Israeli adventurism created the nuclear counterstrike. But if Gabrielle's vision really does prove to be predictive, then the matter will go far deeper.

Throughout her conversation with me, Gabrielle insisted on one important detail: The media and the administration will not tell the American people the truth about the individuals responsible for setting off a "small" nuclear device in Chicago. Fingers will point to the wrong party.

I hope this event never comes to pass.

I hope ESP does not exist. I hope that Gabrielle's 1999 dream about planes flying into "buildings like the World Trade Center" was mere coincidence. I hope that, years from now, this column will be viewed as the product of a paranoid person living in a paranoid era.

By all means, laugh at what I've just written. I hope one day to laugh along with you.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

For those few of you checking in...

I had a horrible dream last night. In it, someone showed me a newspaper, dated 2024. The headline read: "President Jenna Bush Makes Horse Senator."

I woke up in a cold sweat -- and then I realized that since no-one in the Bush family has read history, no-one in that family would make any attempt to re-live it.

At any rate: Yes, I've been absent from blog-land for a very long time, and may be absent for a bit longer. Eventually, I hope to re-establish a presence. Right now, life has tossed an obstruction in my path. It's not the sort of thing that will keep me stuck in place for long.

See you soon...