Vice-President Dick Cheney paid a surprise visit to the troops in Iraq on his way back from the Far East. “It was pretty amazing,” said Marine Lance Corporal Cannon Fodder. “He suited up just like the rest of us and came along as we made a sweep through Anbar province.”
Cheney, who prohibited the press from the mission, said he “just wanted to see what the situation was on the ground.” The unit with Cheney came under fire as they entered Fallujah, and the Vice-President returned fire from a forward position until the rest of the unit could take cover. “I’ve always respected Mr. Cheney as a man of selfless dedication and conviction,” said the unit’s commander, “but I had no idea he would demonstrate such bravery in combat.”
Later in the day, when a suspected terrorist refused to cooperate, the Vice-President took over the interrogation and applied a battery of stress techniques, short of torture, until the suspect began to name names.
At the end of the day’s mission, Cheney gave an inspirational talk that repeatedly brought the Marines to their feet, in a performance that veterans compared to the likes of General George Patton. Back in the nation’s capital, the Vice-President cut short any talk of a medal and downplayed the incident, saying only that one of his great regrets in life was that other priorities prevented him from serving his country during the Vietnam conflict. His nation-wide approval ratings, already high, soared to their highest level since the 9/11 attacks, especially after he announced that he was donating all the proceeds from his Halliburton stock to a private fund set up to care for Iraq war casualties and their families.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Terrorists are not cockroaches
The key theme of the advertising campaign for the so-called “War on Terror” is based on a false analogy. The product currently sold to the American consumer might be called
the extermination model of counter-terrorism. In this model, the world is analogous to a house, in which some of the occupants (the West) have noticed an infestation of cockroaches (terrorists) in the kitchen (the Middle East.) According to this model, it's better to kill the vermin in the kitchen, before they spread into the bedroom (America), and to not stop killing until the whole nest is wiped out and the house is free of cockroaches.
The main problems with this model are that in terms of the present world situation, a) there were very few cockroaches in the kitchen until the exterminators showed up, and b) the more killing the exterminators do, the more the cockroaches reproduce.
A model that better explains what we actually see happening might be called the immune system response model. In this model, Iraq is the human patient, which the West has been operating on for decades. The worse the patient grows under the doctor's care, the more care the doctor gives the patient. At present, the doctor is attempting to transplant an artificial heart while the patient lays comatose on the operating table. In large part, what are called “terrorists” are the white blood cells that the immune system is using to attempt to reject the foreign organ. The more the doctor attempts to force the patient's body to accept the artificial heart, the more white blood cells the patient's immune system creates to fight it.
The only victory possible for the doctor is to completely destroy the patient's immune system, after which the patient will be completely dependent on the technological support necessary (the American occupation) to keep the artificial heart pumping.
the extermination model of counter-terrorism. In this model, the world is analogous to a house, in which some of the occupants (the West) have noticed an infestation of cockroaches (terrorists) in the kitchen (the Middle East.) According to this model, it's better to kill the vermin in the kitchen, before they spread into the bedroom (America), and to not stop killing until the whole nest is wiped out and the house is free of cockroaches.
The main problems with this model are that in terms of the present world situation, a) there were very few cockroaches in the kitchen until the exterminators showed up, and b) the more killing the exterminators do, the more the cockroaches reproduce.
A model that better explains what we actually see happening might be called the immune system response model. In this model, Iraq is the human patient, which the West has been operating on for decades. The worse the patient grows under the doctor's care, the more care the doctor gives the patient. At present, the doctor is attempting to transplant an artificial heart while the patient lays comatose on the operating table. In large part, what are called “terrorists” are the white blood cells that the immune system is using to attempt to reject the foreign organ. The more the doctor attempts to force the patient's body to accept the artificial heart, the more white blood cells the patient's immune system creates to fight it.
The only victory possible for the doctor is to completely destroy the patient's immune system, after which the patient will be completely dependent on the technological support necessary (the American occupation) to keep the artificial heart pumping.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Secret decoder ring
I used to think that Bush was simply lying, but since I found the secret decoder ring, I realize that’s not strictly accurate. It’s more like he’s talking in code when he says things like “We are fighting to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.”
For instance, take the word “people”. When Bush uses this term, what he really means is, “corporation”, which is not such a stretch because after all a corporation is now somehow considered a “person” whose rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, just like you and me and other “people”. Thus, in any sentence where “people’s” freedoms are being celebrated, what Bush really means is, a corporation’s freedom to operate without government intervention or oversight.
Then there’s the word, “Iraqi”. Because Bush sees everything through a corporate lens, what Bush means by this is, foreign shareholders in the Iraqi economy. Thus, because a key objective of the Iraq invasion and occupation was the takeover of the Iraqi economy by global corporations, what Bush means when he says we are fighting to “bring freedom to the Iraqi people”, is that we are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.
Then there’s the word “we”, by which Bush means “you”. When Bush says, “we” are fighting, he doesn’t mean himself or his family or anybody’s children that he knows. He means you and your children. Thus, the reason we are in Iraq? “You and your children are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.”
Let freedom ring.
For instance, take the word “people”. When Bush uses this term, what he really means is, “corporation”, which is not such a stretch because after all a corporation is now somehow considered a “person” whose rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, just like you and me and other “people”. Thus, in any sentence where “people’s” freedoms are being celebrated, what Bush really means is, a corporation’s freedom to operate without government intervention or oversight.
Then there’s the word, “Iraqi”. Because Bush sees everything through a corporate lens, what Bush means by this is, foreign shareholders in the Iraqi economy. Thus, because a key objective of the Iraq invasion and occupation was the takeover of the Iraqi economy by global corporations, what Bush means when he says we are fighting to “bring freedom to the Iraqi people”, is that we are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.
Then there’s the word “we”, by which Bush means “you”. When Bush says, “we” are fighting, he doesn’t mean himself or his family or anybody’s children that he knows. He means you and your children. Thus, the reason we are in Iraq? “You and your children are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.”
Let freedom ring.
George crosses the Delaware
What a joke to see George W. Bush strutting at Mount Vernon on George Washington’s birthday, attempting to link the Revolutionary War to Bush’s current military adventures. George Washington was a war hero, fighting to birth a new nation to be governed by and for the people. George W. Bush is a war criminal, fighting to make the world safe for predatory trans-national corporations.
In the speech somebody wrote for him, Bush tried to make a case that Washington would have supported Bush’s wars of aggression, by quoting the following: “My best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever in any country I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom.” But which side does the historically-impaired current president think Washington would have been on?
The American revolution was fought to free the American colonists from the yoke of not only King George but the East India Company, the largest corporation of its day. Is there any doubt that George W. Bush, the privileged scion of inherited wealth, would have been a Tory, on the side of the King and corporation?
Washington and his contemporaries would have recognized what America is doing now as exactly analogous to what the British were doing in their day, maintaining an empire through force of arms and economic policies that favored the imperial nation. Our soldiers in Iraq are much more like the redcoats than the “ragged Continental army”. If George Washington were alive today, Bush would not be standing in his shadow but pinned under his boot.
In the speech somebody wrote for him, Bush tried to make a case that Washington would have supported Bush’s wars of aggression, by quoting the following: “My best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever in any country I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom.” But which side does the historically-impaired current president think Washington would have been on?
The American revolution was fought to free the American colonists from the yoke of not only King George but the East India Company, the largest corporation of its day. Is there any doubt that George W. Bush, the privileged scion of inherited wealth, would have been a Tory, on the side of the King and corporation?
Washington and his contemporaries would have recognized what America is doing now as exactly analogous to what the British were doing in their day, maintaining an empire through force of arms and economic policies that favored the imperial nation. Our soldiers in Iraq are much more like the redcoats than the “ragged Continental army”. If George Washington were alive today, Bush would not be standing in his shadow but pinned under his boot.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Support the troops by cutting the funding!
In the recent so-called debate in the House over the non-binding resolution opposing the troop surge, it’s unfortunate that the hot air generated can’t be piped into surrounding homes as an alternative to burning non-renewable fuel. You’d think from many of the Republican gasbags that it was measures such as this one that, as one Texan put it, “stymie success” in the war in Iraq. As if the insurgents, Shia death squads, and Al Qaeda fanatics had heretofore been restraining themselves because of the resolve shown by Congress to give Bush and company a blank check to continue what Lt. General William Odom has called the greatest blunder in American foreign policy.
However, the idea that cutting off funds for the war would not be “supporting the troops” is the biggest blast of hot air, and both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. The word “support” means to help someone accomplish something they want to do. I’m supporting my son by helping to fund his college efforts. But he wants to go to college. The root of the misunderstanding is the mistaken idea that the Iraq invasion and occupation were something the troops came up with. But of course, this is totally wrong. My son would have figured out a way to get to college without my support. But the troops weren’t gonna invade Iraq unless somebody else ordered them to. When blowhards talk about supporting the troops, they really are saying, support the fanatic ideologues and war profiteers who are demanding that they stay mired in this impossible war.
If we cut off funding today, what would happen? The blowhards would have you conjure images of the poor soldiers, running out of ammunition, threadbare uniforms, starving, at the mercy of the Iraqi wolves. Isn’t that absurd? If we cut off every last dollar of future money, what it means is, we use the money already allocated, which is more than enough, to bring the troops back on the next boat. Now THAT’S supporting our troops.
However, the idea that cutting off funds for the war would not be “supporting the troops” is the biggest blast of hot air, and both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. The word “support” means to help someone accomplish something they want to do. I’m supporting my son by helping to fund his college efforts. But he wants to go to college. The root of the misunderstanding is the mistaken idea that the Iraq invasion and occupation were something the troops came up with. But of course, this is totally wrong. My son would have figured out a way to get to college without my support. But the troops weren’t gonna invade Iraq unless somebody else ordered them to. When blowhards talk about supporting the troops, they really are saying, support the fanatic ideologues and war profiteers who are demanding that they stay mired in this impossible war.
If we cut off funding today, what would happen? The blowhards would have you conjure images of the poor soldiers, running out of ammunition, threadbare uniforms, starving, at the mercy of the Iraqi wolves. Isn’t that absurd? If we cut off every last dollar of future money, what it means is, we use the money already allocated, which is more than enough, to bring the troops back on the next boat. Now THAT’S supporting our troops.
Are you a liberal, anti-semitic conspiracy theorist?
How dumb can we get? That seems to be the experiment we’re running here in America now. Precision of thought and discourse is replaced by labels that confound analysis but rather simply bring forth a Pavlovian response.
As an example, what does the word “liberal” mean anymore? In the wake of hundreds of millions of dollars spent on demonizing this term, you’d never know that it’s original meaning was related to a defense of personal and even commercial freedoms as against a monarch’s dictatorial rule. Now all some haughty talk show personality has to do is hammer the “liberal” bell and the group mind snickers.
An even worse example is the term “anti-semite”. Literally, of course, it means being against a language group. It now pretty much means anyone who criticizes a Jew for anything. For example, try pointing out as Jimmy Carter recently did that the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank is akin to South African apartheid. The usual voices will hammer the “anti-semite” bell, and instantly Carter becomes an advocate of race hatred along the lines of Adolph Hitler. An anomaly with this term is that there is no analog for similar prejudice against any other race. For example, if the Pope declared that in time of war, it was okay and even a blessing to exterminate Israeli children, he’d probably get hit with a few “anti-semite” labels. But then, what can we call the following, reported awhile back during the most recent Israeli war on Lebanon?
“The Talmudic council of Rabbis and Torah sages known as "Yesha", which represents Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, has ruled that it is permissible, even desirable, to target and exterminate non-Jewish civilians during war time.”
Finally, to suggest that the official story of the events of September 11, 2001 contains myriad inconsistencies and outright impossibilities, is to immediately hear someone ringing the “conspiracy theorist” bell. Never mind that the official story is also a theory, never proven or even presented in a court of law, of a conspiracy of Al Qaeda agents. The conditioned response is to imagine a deranged paranoid schizophrenic fixated on imaginary enemies.
We are being deliberately dumbed-down, by a very well-funded and all-pervasive effort to turn us, as Scott Ritter says, from citizens actively and intelligently participating in a democracy, to consumers who buy a political worldview like we buy cigarette brands, based on the image presented in the advertising.
Ripe for the harvest.
As an example, what does the word “liberal” mean anymore? In the wake of hundreds of millions of dollars spent on demonizing this term, you’d never know that it’s original meaning was related to a defense of personal and even commercial freedoms as against a monarch’s dictatorial rule. Now all some haughty talk show personality has to do is hammer the “liberal” bell and the group mind snickers.
An even worse example is the term “anti-semite”. Literally, of course, it means being against a language group. It now pretty much means anyone who criticizes a Jew for anything. For example, try pointing out as Jimmy Carter recently did that the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank is akin to South African apartheid. The usual voices will hammer the “anti-semite” bell, and instantly Carter becomes an advocate of race hatred along the lines of Adolph Hitler. An anomaly with this term is that there is no analog for similar prejudice against any other race. For example, if the Pope declared that in time of war, it was okay and even a blessing to exterminate Israeli children, he’d probably get hit with a few “anti-semite” labels. But then, what can we call the following, reported awhile back during the most recent Israeli war on Lebanon?
“The Talmudic council of Rabbis and Torah sages known as "Yesha", which represents Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, has ruled that it is permissible, even desirable, to target and exterminate non-Jewish civilians during war time.”
Finally, to suggest that the official story of the events of September 11, 2001 contains myriad inconsistencies and outright impossibilities, is to immediately hear someone ringing the “conspiracy theorist” bell. Never mind that the official story is also a theory, never proven or even presented in a court of law, of a conspiracy of Al Qaeda agents. The conditioned response is to imagine a deranged paranoid schizophrenic fixated on imaginary enemies.
We are being deliberately dumbed-down, by a very well-funded and all-pervasive effort to turn us, as Scott Ritter says, from citizens actively and intelligently participating in a democracy, to consumers who buy a political worldview like we buy cigarette brands, based on the image presented in the advertising.
Ripe for the harvest.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Victory in Iraq is a Secret
There’s a kind of viral phenomenon sweeping the nation, in the form of a DVD called The Secret. The essence of the Secret is, thoughts are a form of energy. Think good thoughts, and good things happen to you. Think bad thoughts, and well, you get the idea.
Case in point: William, E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, has just written an op-ed entitled, Victory is Not an Option. Odom quotes the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which he says “starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.”
Odom is not just some military wingnut. He was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. He served on the National Security Council staff under Jimmy Carter. A West Point graduate with a PhD from Columbia, Odom teaches at Yale and is a fellow of the Hudson Institute.
In Odom’s pessimistic assessment, “there never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq.” He thinks this is because of two main “truths” (I quote at length so we can see the extent of Odom’s negative thought-energies):
“First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly "constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.
“Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense…. Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning.”
In contrast to Odom’s negative thinking, Vice-President Cheney has been consistently upbeat. Cheney knows that the reason we’re not winning the war in Iraq is not because of anything that’s happening over there, but because of defeatism here at home. Cheney, Bush, and the rest of the stalwart optimists who continue to support this war know that there is a plan, there has always been a plan, for turning Iraq into a stable, pro-Western democracy. Critics who demand the details of this plan are misguided, and are in fact the primary problem. The plan exists; it’s just a Secret.
Case in point: William, E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, has just written an op-ed entitled, Victory is Not an Option. Odom quotes the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which he says “starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.”
Odom is not just some military wingnut. He was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. He served on the National Security Council staff under Jimmy Carter. A West Point graduate with a PhD from Columbia, Odom teaches at Yale and is a fellow of the Hudson Institute.
In Odom’s pessimistic assessment, “there never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq.” He thinks this is because of two main “truths” (I quote at length so we can see the extent of Odom’s negative thought-energies):
“First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly "constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.
“Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense…. Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning.”
In contrast to Odom’s negative thinking, Vice-President Cheney has been consistently upbeat. Cheney knows that the reason we’re not winning the war in Iraq is not because of anything that’s happening over there, but because of defeatism here at home. Cheney, Bush, and the rest of the stalwart optimists who continue to support this war know that there is a plan, there has always been a plan, for turning Iraq into a stable, pro-Western democracy. Critics who demand the details of this plan are misguided, and are in fact the primary problem. The plan exists; it’s just a Secret.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Vote for the red pill
In the movie The Matrix, the red pill allows you to see the truth of things, which is that humans are living in a virtual fantasy while machines harvest their energy. The blue pill allows you to continue comfortably in the fantasy. While the parallels to modern life, especially in America, are obvious, the reality is as always a bit more nuanced. There are, in fact, many pills of various colors between blue and red.
In political life, the Republican party primarily offers pills in shades of blue. What this means is, for voters who take these pills, America remains the beacon of freedom in the world, stationing troops in over a hundred countries in order to preserve their freedoms. Globalized corporations are largely positive influences in our lives, and are the best means to bring prosperity to an increasing number of world citizens. Unrestrained trade will solve our environmental problems. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and thus deserves to wield enormous influence over American foreign policy, especially because we are both allies in the war against Islamo-fascism, which struck with such deadly force on September, 11, 2001 in the homeland of America. The Iraq war, as disastrously as it has turned out, was a noble effort and is only one battlefield in this war for the very survival of our cherished democratic way of life.
Unfortunately, the Democratic presidential candidates, so far, don’t shift very far to the red. Hillary, for instance, offers a kind of sky-blue pill, which when taken allows you to admit the Iraq war is a disaster, probably was a mistake of some kind, and should be fixed somehow, maybe with more troops. John Edwards has a little green pill, which in addition to admitting the Iraq war is a mistake, lets you admit that you made a mistake by supporting it, and throws into the bargain that the American middle class is being screwed. Barack may be skirting into the yellow, but it’s too soon to tell. Even Dennis Kucinich barely gets us into the orange.
Here’s what the red pill does. You see that American troops are stationed around the world, and the Pentagon budget claims half of our taxes, because America is an empire that doesn’t give a damn about people’s freedoms, and on the contrary actively suppresses democratic movements around the world. You see that corporations are not persons, and do not deserve to be treated as if the Bill of Rights pertains to them. You see that the Israeli lobby has skewed America’s foreign policy more toward Israel’s interests than our own. And finally, you notice that the laws of physics simply do not allow two airplanes to bring down three buildings in a way that looks exactly like controlled demolitions.
So, go ahead and rearrange the deck chairs in the Matrix (to mix metaphors.) Or, if you think you can handle the truth, vote for a candidate that offers you the red pill, and a chance to wake up. So far, one candidate that does so is John Buchanan.
In political life, the Republican party primarily offers pills in shades of blue. What this means is, for voters who take these pills, America remains the beacon of freedom in the world, stationing troops in over a hundred countries in order to preserve their freedoms. Globalized corporations are largely positive influences in our lives, and are the best means to bring prosperity to an increasing number of world citizens. Unrestrained trade will solve our environmental problems. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and thus deserves to wield enormous influence over American foreign policy, especially because we are both allies in the war against Islamo-fascism, which struck with such deadly force on September, 11, 2001 in the homeland of America. The Iraq war, as disastrously as it has turned out, was a noble effort and is only one battlefield in this war for the very survival of our cherished democratic way of life.
Unfortunately, the Democratic presidential candidates, so far, don’t shift very far to the red. Hillary, for instance, offers a kind of sky-blue pill, which when taken allows you to admit the Iraq war is a disaster, probably was a mistake of some kind, and should be fixed somehow, maybe with more troops. John Edwards has a little green pill, which in addition to admitting the Iraq war is a mistake, lets you admit that you made a mistake by supporting it, and throws into the bargain that the American middle class is being screwed. Barack may be skirting into the yellow, but it’s too soon to tell. Even Dennis Kucinich barely gets us into the orange.
Here’s what the red pill does. You see that American troops are stationed around the world, and the Pentagon budget claims half of our taxes, because America is an empire that doesn’t give a damn about people’s freedoms, and on the contrary actively suppresses democratic movements around the world. You see that corporations are not persons, and do not deserve to be treated as if the Bill of Rights pertains to them. You see that the Israeli lobby has skewed America’s foreign policy more toward Israel’s interests than our own. And finally, you notice that the laws of physics simply do not allow two airplanes to bring down three buildings in a way that looks exactly like controlled demolitions.
So, go ahead and rearrange the deck chairs in the Matrix (to mix metaphors.) Or, if you think you can handle the truth, vote for a candidate that offers you the red pill, and a chance to wake up. So far, one candidate that does so is John Buchanan.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Should global warming denial be a crime?
It’s becoming fashionable lately to group those few wackos who still don’t acknowledge the human responsibility for global warming in with other fringe types, most especially those who are said to “deny” the Holocaust. Unfortunately, we’ll have to find a different brush with which to tar these eco criminals who refuse to see the light, because the Holocaust denier analogy just doesn’t hold up. In fact, global warming denial is pretty much the opposite of Holocaust denial, or its more polite name, historical revisionism.
For starters, follow the money. All the big money is on the side of the global warming deniers, in the form of Big Oil execs and their hired hands in the halls of government. Not so for the revisionists, who on the contrary usually face loss of whatever livelihood they have for daring to question any aspect of the Holocaust orthodoxy. You can make big money for writing anything remotely scientific-sounding that debunks global warming. Intellectual integrity is the only reward for inquiring skeptically into the Holocaust.
Legally speaking, no law prohibits anyone from claiming that the melting glaciers of Greenland are caused by methane from cows, or natural terrestrial cycles, or god’s wrath, or whatever other reason comes to mind. Whereas many laws exist to keep the skeptics in line when it comes to the Holocaust.
Last but not least, there’s the science. All the science is on the side of those who assert that global warming is a real and threatening phenomenon, and is largely caused by human activity. Those who still attempt to refute this must do so without benefit of much of anything in the way of scientific validity. Whereas, surprisingly enough for many who haven’t looked into the issue much, the science, such as it is, is pretty much on the side of those who question the official story. One example: renowned revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson has a standing challenge for anyone to demonstrate a design for a gas chamber that would exterminate the number of humans alleged to have been murdered in this way. That’s why the laws against “Holocaust denial” were enacted, according to Faurisson: the revisionists were winning the debate on the evidence.
Should laws be passed against global warming denial? Why bother? No laws are necessary against expressing opinions that are so easily dismissed.
For starters, follow the money. All the big money is on the side of the global warming deniers, in the form of Big Oil execs and their hired hands in the halls of government. Not so for the revisionists, who on the contrary usually face loss of whatever livelihood they have for daring to question any aspect of the Holocaust orthodoxy. You can make big money for writing anything remotely scientific-sounding that debunks global warming. Intellectual integrity is the only reward for inquiring skeptically into the Holocaust.
Legally speaking, no law prohibits anyone from claiming that the melting glaciers of Greenland are caused by methane from cows, or natural terrestrial cycles, or god’s wrath, or whatever other reason comes to mind. Whereas many laws exist to keep the skeptics in line when it comes to the Holocaust.
Last but not least, there’s the science. All the science is on the side of those who assert that global warming is a real and threatening phenomenon, and is largely caused by human activity. Those who still attempt to refute this must do so without benefit of much of anything in the way of scientific validity. Whereas, surprisingly enough for many who haven’t looked into the issue much, the science, such as it is, is pretty much on the side of those who question the official story. One example: renowned revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson has a standing challenge for anyone to demonstrate a design for a gas chamber that would exterminate the number of humans alleged to have been murdered in this way. That’s why the laws against “Holocaust denial” were enacted, according to Faurisson: the revisionists were winning the debate on the evidence.
Should laws be passed against global warming denial? Why bother? No laws are necessary against expressing opinions that are so easily dismissed.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Why the neo-cons went to war
I think I’m finally starting to see why this war made so much sense to so many people. Sure, it’s always been obvious why fanatics like Cheney and Rumsfeld were on board, but why were so many neo-conservative ideologues so determined to see this happen? The answer that comes most quickly to mind is, of course, for the benefit of Israel, seeing as how most neo-cons are Jewish. But the next question was, why does this war benefit Israel? Sure, knocking out their most powerful secular foe, Saddam Hussein, was a plus, and there’s an outside chance a pipeline might be built to carry Iraqi oil to an Israeli port.
But I think there’s more to it. First, look at how many Iraqis have died over the course of the first Gulf war, the genocidal sanctions, and now the most recent, endless carnage. The estimate of childrens’ deaths from the sanctions alone was maybe half a million. And recent estimates put the deaths of Iraqis civilians alone at over 600, 000. In all, we’re probably talking close to a million and half, maybe two million less Iraqis than just fifteen years ago.
Now a different calculation. How many Palestinians still left in the West Bank and Gaza? Wouldn’t there be a lot more room for those heroic Jewish settlers to stretch out and redeem their ancient homeland if these pesky Arabs could be transferred next door, where, coincidentally, there’s now suddenly much more room for them? Wouldn’t that make things a lot calmer in Eretz Israel? Isn’t that what the Peace Process is all about?
You’ve got to give those neo-cons credit, they know what’s good for the Jews. Problem is, what they come up with isn’t always so good for America. So I’ve got one little wrinkle to add. After transferring the Palestinians out, let’s transfer the neo-cons in, one for one. Lots of them already have dual Israeli citizenship anyway. Every Jewish neo-con war promoter and sympathizer transferred to Israel, that’s the plan. Isn’t that what Zionism was supposed to be about- a homeland for ALL the Jews?
But I think there’s more to it. First, look at how many Iraqis have died over the course of the first Gulf war, the genocidal sanctions, and now the most recent, endless carnage. The estimate of childrens’ deaths from the sanctions alone was maybe half a million. And recent estimates put the deaths of Iraqis civilians alone at over 600, 000. In all, we’re probably talking close to a million and half, maybe two million less Iraqis than just fifteen years ago.
Now a different calculation. How many Palestinians still left in the West Bank and Gaza? Wouldn’t there be a lot more room for those heroic Jewish settlers to stretch out and redeem their ancient homeland if these pesky Arabs could be transferred next door, where, coincidentally, there’s now suddenly much more room for them? Wouldn’t that make things a lot calmer in Eretz Israel? Isn’t that what the Peace Process is all about?
You’ve got to give those neo-cons credit, they know what’s good for the Jews. Problem is, what they come up with isn’t always so good for America. So I’ve got one little wrinkle to add. After transferring the Palestinians out, let’s transfer the neo-cons in, one for one. Lots of them already have dual Israeli citizenship anyway. Every Jewish neo-con war promoter and sympathizer transferred to Israel, that’s the plan. Isn’t that what Zionism was supposed to be about- a homeland for ALL the Jews?
Thursday, February 8, 2007
If osama ruled iraq
After all the previous justifications for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are now as discarded as three-year old Bud Light commercials, we’re now told that we can’t bring the troops back now or some kind of unimaginable horror would occur. We’re facing the abyss, they tell us. But they never really spell it out, leaving a black hole for us to fill with all our deepest, most terrifying fears. Well, OK, let’s go there. What’s the worst that could happen? Let’s go ahead and imagine it. Iraq becomes a haven for terrorists. So what? What if the devil himself, Osama Bin Laden, ruled Iraq.
Now, of course, we’re not talking about the real Osama, the guy with the bad kidneys who just wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia. We’re talking about the imaginary Dr. Evil that the American press has built up to be mad dog democracy-hating terrorist genius number one. Lex Luthor on jihad. Let’s say this guy takes over.
First of all, before he can get the nuclear bomb program going so he can continue his suicidal mania for killing Americans, he’s gonna have to deal with a few domestic issues. Number one, the Shia militias are gonna be gunning for him, with all the help they need from Iran. Them Shi-ites sure hate them Sunni fanatics. Plus those pesky Sunni insurgents, those Baathist dead-enders who never quite come to the last of their throes, they’ll be gunning for him as well, with plenty of help from their Saudi backers. Naturally the Kurds will launch a few rockets his way as well.
And, in the meantime, he’ll need to sell the oil to finance whatever nefarious plans he has, and he’ll need some international cooperation to do that, which might be lacking if he makes any terrorist moves. These evil terrorists our leaders keep terrifying us with, they only stay terrorists as long as they can stay in the shadows. Give them a state to run, and they become politicians, as ineffective as any other, as easy a target as any other. See where this is going? Iraq is the kind of nightmare you might wish on your worst enemy.
Now, of course, we’re not talking about the real Osama, the guy with the bad kidneys who just wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia. We’re talking about the imaginary Dr. Evil that the American press has built up to be mad dog democracy-hating terrorist genius number one. Lex Luthor on jihad. Let’s say this guy takes over.
First of all, before he can get the nuclear bomb program going so he can continue his suicidal mania for killing Americans, he’s gonna have to deal with a few domestic issues. Number one, the Shia militias are gonna be gunning for him, with all the help they need from Iran. Them Shi-ites sure hate them Sunni fanatics. Plus those pesky Sunni insurgents, those Baathist dead-enders who never quite come to the last of their throes, they’ll be gunning for him as well, with plenty of help from their Saudi backers. Naturally the Kurds will launch a few rockets his way as well.
And, in the meantime, he’ll need to sell the oil to finance whatever nefarious plans he has, and he’ll need some international cooperation to do that, which might be lacking if he makes any terrorist moves. These evil terrorists our leaders keep terrifying us with, they only stay terrorists as long as they can stay in the shadows. Give them a state to run, and they become politicians, as ineffective as any other, as easy a target as any other. See where this is going? Iraq is the kind of nightmare you might wish on your worst enemy.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
A modest proposal--managing the next 9/11
Let’s take them at their word. Let’s assume for a moment that 9/11 was not an inside job, and that we are fighting the War on Terror to prevent another one. The war in Iraq is only one piece of the larger picture. The battlefield could spread, to Iran, Syria, wherever. It could take decades, it may not be over in our lifetimes.
How’s it working out so far? Let’s do the math. On Sept 11, 2001, we lost around 3,000 lives, three large office buildings, four airplanes, and the remodeling of the Pentagon had to be redone. Total pricetag, in terms of cleanup, medical payouts, and insurance payments to Larry Silverstein, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Since then, in our response, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we’ve lost over 3,000 American lives, with tens of thousands more grievously wounded, untold hundreds of thousands of foreigners (mostly civilians) killed, with estimates of the cost going all the way up to a trillion dollars. To say nothing of the loss of the world’s respect and goodwill. At this rate, with the dollar sinking, we definitely can’t afford another 9/11. The cure is worse than the disease.
But, what if it can’t be prevented? What if Pat Robertson is right, that God will allow, perhaps even demand another horrendous terrorist attack on American soil? At least now, with the advantage of hindsight, we can manage it so that the terrible cost in human lives and property is minimized.
It would be cheaper all the way around to just make a deal with Al Qaeda. They get to pick the time. Surprise us. We’ll pick out three or four office buildings, hopefully that need to be demolished anyway, or that contain sensitive government data that might fall into the hands of the public. This time, to be fair, we make sure there is a representative sample of people inside, so that critics and conspiracy nuts can’t complain that, for instance, all the Israelis got advance notice. Pick a couple of different airlines, so that United and American don’t feel unduly singled out. Allow only deserving insiders, like teacher’s pension funds or Katrina relief organizations, to place the put options, to make the millions when the airline stock plummets.
From our end, we promise to Al Qaeda the same level of inattention to prospective hijackers and their visa problems. We let them train at high-security American bases, as before, but of course no real pilots are allowed. We agree to a basic standdown of military responses, and suspend standard operating procedures when it comes to hijacked aircraft, as before. Give them a couple hours headstart. The buildings, of course, are rigged for controlled demolition, so that neighboring buildings aren’t damaged, but still, the planes have to hit the buildings first.
The final totals, of both lives lost and property damages, are of course a matter of negotiation. But look at what we save. We bring the troops home. Save the trillion dollars that the next war will cost, invest that money in American infrastructure. To make it work politically, we could even award the reconstruction contracts (to build new Freedom Towers to replace the demolished buildings) to Halliburton. Wouldn’t this be cheaper all the way around? Isn’t this the kind of win-win breakthrough we need? Cause this War on Terror we got now--it’s a real bad bargain.
How’s it working out so far? Let’s do the math. On Sept 11, 2001, we lost around 3,000 lives, three large office buildings, four airplanes, and the remodeling of the Pentagon had to be redone. Total pricetag, in terms of cleanup, medical payouts, and insurance payments to Larry Silverstein, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Since then, in our response, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we’ve lost over 3,000 American lives, with tens of thousands more grievously wounded, untold hundreds of thousands of foreigners (mostly civilians) killed, with estimates of the cost going all the way up to a trillion dollars. To say nothing of the loss of the world’s respect and goodwill. At this rate, with the dollar sinking, we definitely can’t afford another 9/11. The cure is worse than the disease.
But, what if it can’t be prevented? What if Pat Robertson is right, that God will allow, perhaps even demand another horrendous terrorist attack on American soil? At least now, with the advantage of hindsight, we can manage it so that the terrible cost in human lives and property is minimized.
It would be cheaper all the way around to just make a deal with Al Qaeda. They get to pick the time. Surprise us. We’ll pick out three or four office buildings, hopefully that need to be demolished anyway, or that contain sensitive government data that might fall into the hands of the public. This time, to be fair, we make sure there is a representative sample of people inside, so that critics and conspiracy nuts can’t complain that, for instance, all the Israelis got advance notice. Pick a couple of different airlines, so that United and American don’t feel unduly singled out. Allow only deserving insiders, like teacher’s pension funds or Katrina relief organizations, to place the put options, to make the millions when the airline stock plummets.
From our end, we promise to Al Qaeda the same level of inattention to prospective hijackers and their visa problems. We let them train at high-security American bases, as before, but of course no real pilots are allowed. We agree to a basic standdown of military responses, and suspend standard operating procedures when it comes to hijacked aircraft, as before. Give them a couple hours headstart. The buildings, of course, are rigged for controlled demolition, so that neighboring buildings aren’t damaged, but still, the planes have to hit the buildings first.
The final totals, of both lives lost and property damages, are of course a matter of negotiation. But look at what we save. We bring the troops home. Save the trillion dollars that the next war will cost, invest that money in American infrastructure. To make it work politically, we could even award the reconstruction contracts (to build new Freedom Towers to replace the demolished buildings) to Halliburton. Wouldn’t this be cheaper all the way around? Isn’t this the kind of win-win breakthrough we need? Cause this War on Terror we got now--it’s a real bad bargain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
