August 06, 2004
Syria blog.
A good addition to the ranks of the "expert blogs" covering issues in the Middle East is the
Syria Blog hosted by Joshua Landis, an Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma.
Syria doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves as a crucial part of the Middle East, but it's right in the middle of everything, and it's only a matter of time before the war now moving from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia moves there as well (if it hasn't already.)
Craigslist approaching a billion hits a month.
Craigslist, the famous community center founded in San Francisco, announced that it is now approaching one billion hits a month. Its job postings are now more popular than any others.
What's really significant about this is how their success is happening despite their doing virtually everything the so-called "experts" say is impossible. It's mostly free, with the only income being from job postings in SF, and now NY and LA, and even those postings costing much less than in other job boards. It doesn't use any flash or fancy graphics at all. It doesn't advertise, or accept advertising itself. It doesn't appear to use any of the "search engine optimization" techniques that have become so popular. There's no registration required, free or otherwise. Nothing at all, except useful content created entirely by the community of users itself, and has spread exclusively through word of mouth. Pretty amazing.
From Abu Ghraib to American prisons.
Via
AlterNet, Normon Solomon writes on the racial and class divisions that underlie American's prison abuses,
From Attica to Abu Ghraib – and a Prison Near You. A short history of the abuses in America's prisons, going back to the horrors of Attica in 1971, and an overview of the racism and contempt for the poor that underlies the climate of cruelty and inhumanity to others that is becoming (or rather, has become) the trademark of 21st century America.
The part about Attica is especially important. Well suppressed by American media is the fact that torture and abuse were prevalent in American prisons decades ago, is nothing new, and has continued to get much worse. Attica exploded in 1971 because conditions there had gotten so bad, and it is only a matter of time before the even worse conditions of today result in even worse outbreaks.
Every day, brutality is a common reality for prisoners in every region of this country. But what goes on behind closed cell doors and thick walls rarely gets exposed to media sunlight.
"I do not view the sexual abuse, torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers as an isolated event," says Terry Kupers, a psychiatrist who has often testified about human rights abuses in U.S. prisons. "The plight of prisoners in the USA is strikingly similar to the plight of the Iraqis who were abused by American GIs. Prisoners are maced, raped, beaten, starved, left naked in freezing cold cells and otherwise abused in too many American prisons, as substantiated by findings in many courts that prisoners' constitutional rights to remain free of cruel and unusual punishment are being violated."
Kupers adds: "In order for the abuses to continue, one group has total control over another; the victims feel they have no recourse and the perpetrators are confident they can get away with it; and the entire ordeal has to remain secret."
That's where the news media should come in – preventing such secrecy.
When the public learned about abuses at Abu Ghraib, there was outrage. But what's going on behind bars in America today still cannot stand the light of media day.
Actually, there hasn't been much "outrage" about Abu Ghraib, at least not from Americans. (There certainly has been outside the US, though, where it has become a watershed event.) It's pretty much dropped off the news. Google, among other media outlets, is censoring the images and news reports, which hasn't been reported at all, and the various investigations and trials are clearly shaping up as something that can best be described as a travesty. No Democrat at their convention even mentioned it. And virtually all of the people responsible are still in charge, and essentially continuing on as before. To me this is the real scandal. Things like that do happen, especially in war. But to cover up and ignore crimes this horrendous is itself a crime of absolutely enormous proportions, and clearly indicates that much worse is yet to come.
I still can't believe that the government has been successful in preventing the release of the remainder of the photos and videos that were taken in Iraq. The ones Rumsfeld himself referred to as "much worse." And that no one seems to care. Why haven't Kerry or Edwards at least once demanded that they be released?
Election protection volunteers.
Personally I feel that American democracy, if in fact there ever was such a thing, is a stone-cold dead beast; and that there's no chance whatsoever of fair or honest elections in this country. At least not on the federal level; maybe somewhat for smaller local elections, but even those I fear have become contaminated by the greed and lawlessness created by the corporates.
But if you do think that there's a chance the November election could be considered fair, and you want to volunteer to help make it so, there's a group
Election Protection Volunteers, that is organizing folks to help monitor the polls and to try to assure that the vote count has at least some connection to reality. They're looking for thousands of volunteers, needed all over the country. The site is hosted by the good, albeit unrealistically idealistic folks at
Working for Change.
Edinburgh festival begins.
The world's biggest arts extravaganza, the Edinburgh Arts Festival, has begun, and the
Scotsman has a nice
guide to it and the city of Edinburgh. The festival's official web site itself is
here.
This is a huge festival, encompassing books, films, televison, theatre, music, you name it. Besides the main festival, there are literally thousands of smaller events in the so-called fringe. If you like the arts you're sure to find something to interest you. And if you're interested in money you should know that it will probably pump over a billion dollars into the Scottish economy.
If you want to get a feel for it, try the ongoing
photo blog. There's also a nice
article on it in the Scotsman, which gives a good overview of what it's about. It points out that its jealousy of Edinburgh's success is inspiring other British cities to invest in the arts and similar festivals.
Already, some of the major English cities, faced with falling visitor-numbers and growing problems with drink-related city centre disorder, are starting a counter-offensive. Some 19 areas have recently been awarded a total of £19.5 million to fund theatre, dance, jazz and cinema festivals. This total includes an award of £2.1 million to Birmingham and £2.75 million to Gateshead. Manchester’s success in hosting the Commonwealth Games has encouraged it to invest in arts and cultural events.
Maybe some day Americans will realize just how profitable the arts can be with some support and investment, and what they can do for a community's economy and reputation. ... Nah, it'll never happen. It'll require education in the arts for one thing, and that's long been sacrificed for the eternal state of war. But it's a nice dream.
Blog Africa.
Via the Guardian's
weblog page is
Blog Africa, a new center for African blogs of all kinds. It's at
allafrica.com, a major African center. It's both a group blog and a
catalog of them. Quite interesting. In numerous languages.
August 04, 2004
Iraq is about to explode.
Via
Common Dreams is an article written by British journalist Robert Fisk,
Can’t Bush and Blair See Iraq Is About to Explode?. He just spent three weeks in Iraq, and says straight out that the situation is utterly chaotic, much more violent than is being reported in the so-called western media, and is getting markedly worse very, very rapidly. And wonders why Blair and Bush don't seem to be able to acknowledge just how bad the situation is.
The war is a fraud. I’m not talking about the weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. Nor the links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda which didn’t exist. Nor all the other lies upon which we went to war. I’m talking about the new lies.
For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America’s puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month’s death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 — the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.
The stage management of this catastrophe in Iraq was all too evident at Saddam Hussein’s “trial”. Not only did the US military censor the tapes of the event. Not only did they effectively delete all sound of the 11 other defendants. But the Americans led Saddam Hussein to believe — until he reached the courtroom — that he was on his way to his execution. Indeed, when he entered the room he believed that the judge was there to condemn him to death. This, after all, was the way Saddam ran his own state security courts. No wonder he initially looked “disorientated” — CNN’s helpful description — because, of course, he was meant to look that way. We had made sure of that. Which is why Saddam asked Judge Juhi: “Are you a lawyer? ... Is this a trial?” And swiftly, as he realized that this really was an initial court hearing — not a preliminary to his own hanging — he quickly adopted an attitude of belligerence. But don’t think we’re going to learn much more about Saddam’s future court appearances. Salem Chalabi, the brother of convicted fraudster Ahmad and the man entrusted by the Americans with the tribunal, told the Iraqi press two weeks ago that all media would be excluded from future court hearings. And I can see why. Because if Saddam does a Milosevic, he’ll want to talk about the real intelligence and military connections of his regime — which were primarily with the United States.
He says a lot of interesting things. One point that he doesn't address, however, and that most observers also seem to miss, is that Blair and Bush and others of their ilk, WANT the situation there to be chaotic. The last thing they really want is a peaceful, democratic, stable Middle East. Their policies thrive on uncertainty and instability. It's a version of the old policy of "divide and conquer." Keep things stirred up and confused and you can basically do what you want.
They LOVE the "war on terrorism," and are doing everything they can to perpetuate it. It feeds the economic interests of their defense industry supporters, allows them to distract attention from all other issues, makes it possible for them to portray themselves as so-called leaders of the "free world," and provides a rationale for their revival of imperial aims and the white supremacist views that underlie that.
That's why they keep issuing these bizarre alerts, and telling people what incredible dangers they're in, even though the facts of the matter are that there have been no attacks on Britain itself, not a single solitary one, and only one several years ago on the US. As opposed to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks by the US and the UK on other nations and peoples throughout the world during the past century, of which Iraq is just the latest. But as long as things are chaotic and people are scared they can keep repeating their lies and people will believe them.
"Attack dogs".
Tom Engelhardt writes a very useful regular column,
Tom Dispatch for the Nation Institute. Today's entry,
Attack Dogs, gives an excellent overview of the situation in Iraq, along with many links to supporting evidence and other articles. Basically he says Iraq is lost. Period. It's a long article which covers a lot of territory, including the torture and rape of children by American terrorists there. Critical of Bush and the Republicans, as you can imagine, but equally of Kerry and the Democrats. Well worth reading.
9/11 Commission chimera.
Via
TruthOut, is an article by Ray McGovern, a longtime CIA employee, entitled
9/11 Commission Chimera, in which he challenges the work of the 9/11 Commission, especially its contention that no one was/is in charge of the American intelligence community. And accuses it of partisanship and of failing to pursue the real causes of resistance to American imperialism.
Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton shared with the Senators his frustration at the answer he got when he kept asking intelligence community officials who is in charge. "The President," they said. Hamilton branded this "not a very satisfactory answer," adding, "no one would say that the Director of Central Intelligence is in charge."
It need not be so. During my 27-years at the Central Intelligence Agency I served under nine directors and worked closely with four of them. They were in charge.
One of them, Admiral Stansfield Turner, came to the C.I.A. from his post as commander of the 6th Fleet with a keen appreciation of the need for the authority necessary to carry out his responsibilities. Recognizing that his authority over the intelligence community was largely ad referendum to the president, he went to President Carter and obtained what was needed. Writing in Sunday's Washington Post, Turner recounted that Carter issued a presidential executive order giving DCI Turner authority over all 15 intelligence agencies "to reallocate funds and people among them and to set priorities for both collecting and analyzing intelligence." Turner notes, "This enabled a far greater degree of coordination than we have today."
So if today "no one is in charge," it does not have to be that way. Hamilton's comment notwithstanding, it is a completely satisfactory answer that the president is in charge, and that he need only empower the DCI by executive order to enable him to get the job done.
Did the commission fail to solicit Admiral Turner's views during its long investigation?...or fail to take them into account? It is difficult to believe that it is a totally new concept to the commission that, as Turner puts it, "the recommended position of National Intelligence Director (NID) already exists...It is the Director of Central Intelligence created by the National Security Act of 1947, with responsibility for coordinating the nation's 15 intelligence agencies."
I wrote a
post the other day on similar accusations made by a long-time FBI agent, who also suggests that things inside his agency were not really as the 9/11 Commission makes them out to be. Together they create some serious doubts about whether the commission was even really interested in finding out about 9/11, or whether they were just using the occasion to pursue partisan interests (on both sides).
One of the things McGovern points out is that only two of the ten commissioners had any real experience in the federal government. Given that it is striking that insiders _with_ long experience should be so suspicious and critical.
August 02, 2004
20 Rules for Writers.
The
Writing Salon is a writers community and group blog, where folks post their latest poems, stories or whatever. Found
Erika's 20 Rules for Writers over there, and though I'd keep it around for future reference.
Erica's 20 Rules for Writers
1. Have faith - not cynicism
2. Dare to dream
3. Take your mind off publication
4. Write for joy
5. Get the reader to turn the page
6. Forget politics (let your real politics shine through)
7. Forget intellect
8. Forget ego
9. Be a beginner
10. Accept change
11. Don't think your mind needs altering
12. Don't expect approval for telling the truth -
(Parents, politicians, colleagues, friends, etc.)
13. Use everything
14. Remember that writing is Heroism
15. Let Sex (The Body, the physical world) in!
16. Forget critics
17. Tell your truth not the world's
18. Remember to be earth-bound
19. Remember to be wild!
20. Write for the child (in yourself and others)
These really would apply to any of the arts, or pretty much any endeavor. Business too.
Public letter to the 9/11 Commission chairman from FBI whistleblower.
Via
Common Dreams is an extraordinary
Public Letter to 9/11 Commission Chairman from FBI Whistleblower, from a very brave woman named Sibel Edmonds. full of some amazing revelations, ending with some very strong charges against the commission itself.
I would have sworn that nothing this administration did would shock me, but I was wrong. It's a long letter, full of detailed charges, mostly regarding the operations of the FBI's translation office, the first step in the process of all intelligence. And all apparently very well documented and witnessed. A must-read, I'd say.
I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated. If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.
Essentially he's saying that not only is the FBI not doing all it can to fight (so-called) terrorism, but that people in it, at very high levels, are apparently blocking any investigations that may threaten certain private financial interests. Pretty amazing. He's accusing the 9/11 Commission of what amounts to a substantial cover-up of some crucial information, and does so in the strongest possible language. I love his conclusion:
Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve the intentional continuation of ineptitude and incompetence by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem? ...
In order to cure a problem, one must have an accurate diagnosis. In order to correctly diagnose a problem, one must consider and take into account all visible symptoms. Your Commission's investigations, hearings, and report have chosen not to consider many visible symptoms. I am emphasizing 'visible', because these symptoms have been long recognized by experts from the intelligence community and have been written about in the press. I am emphasizing 'visible' because the few specific symptoms I provided you with in this letter have been confirmed and publicly acknowledged. During its many hearings your commission chose not to ask the questions necessary to unveil the true symptoms of our failed intelligence system. Your Commission intentionally bypassed these severe symptoms, and chose not to include them in its five hundred and sixty seven-page report. Now, without a complete list of our failures pre 9/11, without a comprehensive examination of true symptoms that exist in our intelligence system, without assigning any accountability what so ever, and therefore, without a sound and reliable diagnosis, your commission is attempting to divert attention from the real problems, and to prescribe a cure through hasty and costly measures. It is like attempting to put a gold-lined expensive porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth with a rotten root, without first treating the root, and without first cleaning/shaving the infected tooth.
I love the tooth analogy. That's also exactly what I want to say that Kerry will somehow make things better, because that's exactly what it is. No matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how much he may want to "do the right thing", the system itself is utterly and throughly corrupt, and no one and nothing can change that. The longer we delay in addressing this central fact, the worse it will get. Period.
And we can't just HOPE it will get better somehow, not while America is pumping out unfathomable quantities of weapons of every possible description, including nuclear, chemical and biological WMDs, all using the latest 21st century technology, just as fast as it possibly can. 24/7. All of which Kerry proposes increasing: "no retreat, no surrender."
Addendum: there is a long
analysis of her story and claims in the
Asia Times, including more background, snippets from interviews with her, her attempts to file suit against the government for dismissing her and her claims, and on the vicious attempts by the feds to silence her, which include persecuting and harassing members of her family.
American media beginning to predict Democratic sweep.
In contrast to the skepticism of the international media (see previous
post), American observers are beginning to see the possibility of a Democratic sweep of not only the White House, but the Senate and House as well. At least that's the conclusion of a Time magazine
article on the subject, the first time I've seen a major media source acknowledge the possibility. They point out that the Democrats need only gain 11 seats to take the House, which isn't very much, only one out of three of the most heavily contested races.
But the landscape may have changed, giving the Democrats a shot at winning a Triple Crown of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. The third leg is still a steep climb, but hardly an impossible one. Instead of a perfect storm, House Minority Whip Steney Hoyer believes Democrats need only "a breeze." ...
Democrats see 33 seats across the country as competitive — far less than the 68 in play in 1994, but then the Dems only need a net gain of 11 to win back the House. That means winning one out of every three competitive races — easier, perhaps, than the one out of every 1.8 Gingrich's Republicans had to win in 1994.
They're being cautious, but even the corporates can see that there is a tide beginning to turn in America and it isn't moving to the right. Not by a long shot. I think there is a possibility of a Democratic sweep so strong that it could virtually eliminate the Republicans as a mainstream party. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they took a lot of the so-called "safe" seats as well.
I'd compare it to 1932 when FDR won so handily that the Republicans were forced into the political wilderness for a full generation. Except this time they just may not make it back. The things they're doing now will not be forgotten very soon.
And then the Democrats will take us straight into a serious war, just as Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII) and JFK (Vietnam) did. They may not mean for it to happen, but history will overwhelm them, and Kerry's "no retreat, no surrender" will force his hand. Bummer.
International media skeptical about Kerry.
A BBC News
report quotes a number of different papers around the world regarding Kerry, and seems to indicate that most of them still think Bush has a chance of being reelected. Surprising, given Kerry's clear lead in the polls, and the degree of animosity most Americans, of all persuasions, have developed towards him.
It's curious. While virtually everyone in the world claims to hate Bush, especially those outside the US, at the same time they seem to somehow want him to be there, and remain incredibly skeptical of the suggestion that he will lose.
Hard to say why this is. I think one reason is the same as the reason so many American Democrats have for blaming Bush for everything wrong with the US, even though the Democrats are clearly just as responsible for things as the Republicans: BLAMING BUSH IS A GOOD WAY TO AVOID ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISTAKES, AND IT ACTS TO DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL PROBLEMS, MOST ESPECIALLY THEIR OWN CORRUPTION. Foreigners are able to blame Bush for everything, not America, which in turn allows them to continue to do business with the US, and cash in on all of the profits. Very convenient. And those who are truly opposed to or in conflict with the US want him to be reelected since he makes a good bogeyman to appeal to their own peoples.
In any case, I think they're all clearly wrong. Kerry is a virtual shoo-in at this point. Not a guarantee, but about as close as you can get.
August 01, 2004
House of Bush, House of Saud.
Via the
Guardian is Martin Jacques'
review and discussion of Craig Unger's new book, "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Hidden Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties", which analyzes the relationship between these two powerful families. It's an important story that every American should know about.
The Saudis never enjoyed the same kind of intimacy and ease with the Clinton administration as they did with the Bush administrations. The connections, cultivated over a quarter of a century, are complex and multifarious, emanating outwards from Houston, centred on oil, embracing both the public and private sector activities of the House of Bush, lubricated and driven by money and power. Unger estimates that $1.476bn has made its way over time from the Saudis to the House of Bush, and its allied companies and institutions. He writes: "It could safely be said that never before in history had a presidential candidate - much less a presidential candidate and his father, a former president - been so closely tied financially and personally to the ruling family of another foreign power. Never before had a president's fortunes and public policies been so deeply entwined with another nation."
September 11 placed the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US under extreme pressure. Unger catalogues the tensions in intimate detail. He describes how the Bush administration has sought to soothe and safeguard the intimacy, failing to ask or pursue crucial questions about the involvement of leading Saudi figures in 9/11. But the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia - one of the cornerstones of American policy since 1973, and earlier - is now closer to breaking point than ever before. Can the Bush administration continue to turn a blind eye? Will the House of Saud survive? What will the Americans do in response to its likely successor, an aggressively anti-American, fundamentalist regime? What price an American occupation of the world's most important oilfields? The future is, indeed, uncertain.
No, of course the House of Saud can't survive. It is one of the most undemocratic, repressive regimes in the world, without anything even vaguely resembling the rule of law or civil rights. The only thing that could possibly keep it going is the military and financial support of the Americans and the British, who are after all the main powers who helped establish it a hundred years ago. But that would take massive armies, which clearly are no longer politically acceptable.
If Americans haven't yet realized that the war in Iraq is now spreading into Iran and Saudi Arabia, and from there who knows where, they need to wake up. Americans won't have access to cheap Saudi oil for much longer. It's just a matter of time before it stops, and the major repercussions of that hit the international economy.
End of entries. ( ) ( )
