Rupublican Foolishness, Plus Pretty Pictures

Here is my take on a few things from Andrew Sullivan's excellent blog, which you guys should check out on the reg.

First, has anyone else noticed that John McCain is just saying the most ridiculous shit these days? It seems like he is just really bitter about losing the election, which, when paired with a desperate desire to live out his few remaining years (days? who knows at this point he is really old and not lookin so hot) in political relevance, equals trouble. He is an extremely outspoken critic of everything that Obama and the Democrats do these days. And yes, so are all Republicans (this guy knows what I'm talking about). But McCain should know better. During the Bush administration, he was pretty centrist on at least some things. And, immediately after the election, he pledged to work with Obama. Maybe if you play that speech backward you can actually hear him saying "JK, you guys!! LOL!!!", in his natural, reptilian-humanoid dialect. I don't know. Until I hear proof of that I'm just going to have to take him at his word and assume he is a liar.

The latest call to arms he has taken up is calling for prosecution of the band Weatherbox on treason charges the holy message that gay people should remain in the closet if they want to serve their country in the military. Which is ridiculous, obviously. It's 2010, McCain!! Every American should be able to murder Middle-Eastern civilians! It's our birth right! Here's an embarrassing exchange for McCain, via Sullivan's blog:

"The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position," - McCain, yesterday.

“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen," Colin Powell, today.

Ouch!

Secondly, this about Sarah Palin and her shameful use of a human being that she gave birth to as a political prop, and her ridiculous call for Rahm Emmanuel to be fired for an off-hand remark he made last summer:

"Did she really just call for Rahm Emanuel to be fired because he allegedly used the term "fucking retarded" to refer to fellow Democrats in a private meeting? Last summer? Did she really?

I don't like the term myself. I think it is offensive. I think Rahm Emanuel is offensive. But at least he's real. And he has now apologized. And at least he used the term metaphorically.

Palin, in contrast, called her own campaign prop "her retarded baby" in private, according to an eye-witness account from the father of her own grandson who lived in her house for months and knew her intimately. "I was just in shock the first time I heard it," Levi Johnston told CBS. Unlike Sarah Palin, Johnston has not been caught in multiple indisputable lies. I believe him over her. In fact, in any factual dispute, I believe anyone over her.

While I'm at it, does anyone actually believe that Palin's name for the child of miraculous provenance was found by her deep knowledge of ancient Norse as she claims in her magical-realism novel, "Going Rogue"? I mean, seriously. She knows about as much ancient Norse as she does English grammar. It's as credible as the idea that she gave a speech while having contractions, several hours after going into labor, as she claims in her novel. It's as credible as her amazing journey in labor with a special needs child on a plane where the flight attendants, according to theAnchorage Daily News, did not even notice she was pregnant. It's as credible as any number of indisputable self-serving, unbalanced lies that she has told in the public record for years.

The medical term for Down Syndrome is Trisomy-21 or Trisomy-g. It is often shortened in medical slang to Tri-g.

Is it not perfectly possible that the very name given to this poor child, being reared by Bristol, is another form of mockery of his condition, along with the "retarded baby" tag? And does the way in which this poor child was hauled around the country on a book tour, being dragged out in front of flash photographs in the middle of the night, barely clothed, suggest someone who actually cares for children with special needs, or rather sees them as a way to keep the spotlight on her?"

Magical-realism novel!! That is such a good one! Poor kid.

Lastly, Sullivan is releasing a book of really pretty pictures of views from windows all over the world at different times of the day. Preview here.

Wow

Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney talking about the necessity of racial profiling in airports:

Let's try to analyze this "logic" a bit. He starts off by saying that "he believes" that there will be a terrorist attack on an airplane in the next "30-120 days." This is an incredulously vague number if I've ever heard one. A little bit of background on Lt. Gen. McInerney would be beneficial here. He was one of the retired military officials recruited by the Pentagon as a "key influential" to appear on talk shows and/or as sources in articles/op-eds to sell the American public on the Iraq war back in 2002. So it's clear that McInerney is no stranger to shameless propaganda engineered to advance the budget/agenda of the military-industrial complex. Typical of this sort of propaganda is the imposition of meaningless, vague deadlines such as this, designed to elicit knee-jerk fear in all who hear them. Particularly note the lack of evidence, and also the lack of a request to provide it from the interviewer.

So, the profiling bombshell. The fact that this is a hideous, bigoted thing to propose can, I think, be taken for granted. Again, he goes into no detail regarding how "muslims" would be identified. This is made particularly difficult when he says the profiling would not be racial in nature. The fact that he proposes profiling based on religious belief effectively indicates that he feels that the government, through the arm of the TSA, should be able to violate the individual rights of anyone it wants.

As justification for this, he says that Israel has done this for some time and been "extremely successful" with this technique. So, the idea here is to use Israel as our model for human rights/moral decisions? Because, if so, that's fucked.

Finally, the idea that the government should, or could, be held responsible for the wellbeing of every citizen of its principality is complete bullshit, and yet seems to be regarded as its primary objective these days. For more on this, I quote Glenn Greenwald:

"The citizenry has been trained to expect that our Powerful Daddies and Mommies in government will -- in that most cringe-inducing, child-like formulation -- Keep Us Safe. Whenever the Government fails to do so, the reaction -- just as we saw this week -- is an ugly combination of petulant, adolescent rage and increasingly unhinged cries that More Be Done to ensure that nothing bad in the world ever happens. Demands that genuinely inept government officials be held accountable are necessary and wise, but demands that political leaders ensure that we can live in womb-like Absolute Safety are delusional and destructive. Yet this is what the citizenry screams out every time something threatening happens: please, take more of our privacy away; monitor more of our communications; ban more of us from flying; engage in rituals to create the illusion of Strength; imprison more people without charges; take more and more control and power so you can Keep Us Safe."

BUMMER WEDNESDAY

As distinguished from "Bummer Tuesday," which does not actually exist on this blog. Everyone get ready to get bummed!

From n+1:

If anyone was worried that the Obama administration would represent a break with the past, the President's recent actions in Latin America should assuage any lingering concerns. As Obama was preparing to announce an escalation of American commitments in Afghanistan, he was also preparing, more quietly and furtively, to recognize Sunday's elections in Honduras, which took place under a military coup government, as well as to expand the US military presence in Colombia to seven military bases, under the pretext of enlarging the limitless "war on drugs." Latin America has long been the testing ground for US policies that found more forceful expression elsewhere—"empire's workshop," Greg Grandin has called it. From the 1901 Platt Amendment, which legitimated US indirect control over Cuba, to the proxy wars in Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, the essential character of the US was seen most clearly in the countries just to the south. The events of the last few months reveal no fundamental change.

In nearly every respect, the coup in Honduras was an almost parodic recreation of the old, bad times of military dictatorships in the 60s and 70s, when coups swept nearly every country in Latin America. The story inevitably involved a president who threatened to undermine bourgeois (and thereby US) interests, however modestly, and thus signed away his life and liberty. Deposed President Manuel Zelaya, who in his administration's early stages might have seemed yet another empty elite candidate from his country's Liberal Party, moved slightly left under the pressure of social movements, raising the minimum wage and publicly speaking about badly needed agrarian reforms in his desperately poor country (the third poorest in the Western hemisphere, after Haiti and Nicaragua). Popular desire for more inclusion in the political process led to a non-binding "encuesta," or poll, regarding the formation of a Constituent Assembly to reform the constitution, which, due to its inconsistencies and enshrinement of the old, wealthy landowning class, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias has called "the worst constitution in the world."

Zelaya's moves towards greater reforms threatened the country's long-entrenched power elite. His modest fraternizing with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who provided subsidized oil to the country, suggested a hidden hand in the reforms (in fact, the result of national-popular, rather than foreign, pressure). When the coup came, the only surprise was that the US did not have a direct hand in supporting it. The indirect hand, however, like God in his universe, was everywhere visible. Two of the coup leaders, Gen. Romeo Vasquez and Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, were trained in the US's infamous "School of the Americas"; the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) secured a lobbyist, the indefatigable Lanny Davis, who seems to prove that opinions grow in virulence the more they are bought and paid for; and Rep. Connie Mack of Florida, with forty-six house Republicans, many of whom saw the coup in Honduras as the first victory against Chavez's "socialism for the 21st century," introduced a bill to condemn Zelaya. Coup-supporters charged Zelaya with trying to amend the constitution in order to extend his term. That this flew in the face of evidence to the contrary—any constitutional assembly would convene after Zelaya's term had ended—only cemented the perception that constitutional questions were not the coup leaders' primary motivations.1

Obama and the State Department publicly and fiercely condemned the coup, in a manner one would not have expected from the coup-loving Bush administration (which supported the 2002 coup against Chavez, and the 2004 coup against Aristide in Haiti). This difference, however, was merely rhetorical. Privately—characteristically—Obama began to cave to Republican pressures. His actions quickly began to reveal that he had discarded anything resembling principle in favor of vacuous bipartisanship (the kind in which only one party gains). First, the administration did not officially recognize the coup as a "military coup" (though it had been brought to completion by military officers), which would have resulted in an automatic cut off of all aid to the country. Second, after the administration negotiated an accord that demanded a power-sharing government and called for the Honduran Congress to vote on Zelaya's restitution, it failed to lodge a protest when coup leader Roberto Micheletti went ahead and formed a government without Zelaya. Finally, the Obama administration dropped its weak-kneed rhetorical stance when the assistant secretary for Latin American affairs, Thomas Shannon, indicated that the administration would recognize elections in Honduras, with or without Zelaya's restitution. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the Senate's most conservative members and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, revealed that he had extracted the change by agreeing to lift his block on two State Department appointments. In the event, the elections commanded what may turn out to be only a 38% turnout, not the incredible 61.3% that Honduras' Supreme Electoral Tribunal has been reporting. A peaceful protest of 500 people was broken up by tear-gas and water cannon, and a conservative businessman, Porfirio Lobo, handily won. In recognizing the compromised elections, the US is joined in its regressive stance only by right-wing governments in Panama, Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia and Israel, who collectively legitimate a military government which has led to the deaths of hundreds and the arbitrary detention of thousands.

Structural necessities of US power, rather than the liberal idealism and desire for change that Obama would like to parlay as his government's raison d'etre, have determined the course of events. Nothing makes this clearer than the agreement Obama has negotiated with Alvaro Uribe's administration in Colombia to expand the US military presence to seven new bases. Since 2002, under the auspices of "Plan Colombia," the US has been giving $75 million to support the ever-more foolhardy "war on drugs." Coca cultivation has actually increased in Colombia since the plan's inception, and the murder of civilians and trade unionists by the Colombian military and its paramilitary allies continues apace. The new base policy, however, represents a more unconstrained version of previous American efforts. Whereas Plan Colombia was subject to congressional debate and Colombian law, any US military operations conducted from new bases would be entirely free from both. Their reach would be limitless: The new bases, according to recently released military documents, will offer "an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America...a critical sub region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters." Obama has long criticized Colombia's dismal human rights record; his actions indicate that a perpetuation of military control over the US's closest sphere of influence, rather than a new commitment to human dignity, represent his most immediate concerns.2

When Obama, following the Bush administration, suspended a preferential trade agreement with Bolivia over that country's supposed failures in drug policy, Bolivia's president Evo Morales harshly criticized the President for "slanders, lies, and false accusations." For the typical virulence of his rhetoric, Morales was reprimanded in his own country. He should not have been. He only spoke the truth to an administration that is increasingly evincing a scant regard for it. Anyone who believed that an Obama government would provide an opening for a weary Latin American left can rest assured: no such opening is forthcoming. As Obama seeks the maintenance of a puppet-democracy in Afghanistan, he has lost a true democracy on his watch, and he has inflamed border tensions in Latin America with his unthinking military policy. In his misguided quest for bipartisanship—for gains in his own policies that are, at best, modest—he may steadily be conceding an entire continent and the democratic aspirations of millions.

You're so bummed right now, probably.

MEDIA FAIL

Dear Internet,

Sorry about the recent absence, but I looked up from my computer screen and couldn't believe it: the Real World! What's that? Is he talking about the TV show?, some of you may be asking. Well, kind of. It's hard to explain. Ask your parents. Anyways, my investigation of this Real World has been very educational (People have faces! Like, real ones!), but I ultimately decided that it was high time to crawl back into the warm and cozy internet. Here is something I found there (here?)!

From Salon:

Each time the U.S. bombs a new location in the Muslim world, the same pattern emerges. First, officials from the U.S. or allied governments run to their favorite media outlet to claim -- anonymously -- that some big, bad, notorious, "top" Al Qaeda leader "may have been" or "likely was" killed in the strike, and this constitutes a "stinging" or "devastating" blow against the Terrorist group. These compliant media outlets then sensationalistically trumpet that claim as the dominant theme of their "reporting" on the attack, drowning out every other issue.

As a result, and by design, there is never any debate or discussion over the propriety or wisdom of these strikes. After all, what sane, rational, Serious person would possibly question a bombing raid or missile strike that "likely" killed a murderous, top Al Qaeda fighter and struck a "devastating blow" to that group's operationg abilities? Having the story shaped this way also ensures that there is virtually no attention paid to the resulting civilian casualties (i.e., the slaughter of innocent people); most Americans, especially journalists, have been trained to ignore such deaths as nothing more than justifiable "collateral damage," especially when a murderous, top Al Qaeda fighter was killed by the bombs (besides, as Alan Dershowitz once explained, "civilians" in close enough proximity to a Top Terrorist themselves may very well bear some degree of culpability). The adolescentWe-Got-the-Bad-Guy! headline also ensures there is no attention paid to the radicalizing effect of these civilian deaths and our attacks for that country and in the region.

Yet over and over and over, it turns out that these anonymous government assertions -- trumpeted by our mindless media -- are completely false. The Big Bad Guy allegedly killed in the strike ends up nowhere near the bombs and missiles. Sometimes, the very same Big Bad Guy can be used to justify different strikes over the course of many years (we know we said we killed him four times before, but this time we're pretty sure we got him), or he can turn up alive when it's time to re-trumpet the Al Qaeda threat (we said before we killed him in that devastating airstrike, but actually he's alive and more dangerous than ever!!). Just like the "we killed 30 extremists" claim or the"we got Al Qaeda's Number 3" boast, this is propaganda in its purest form, disseminated jointly by the U.S. Government and American media, and it happens over and over, compelling a rational person to conclude that it's clearly intentional by both parties.

In the last week alone, this pattern just asserted itself -- twice -- with regard to the air strikes in Yemen. The first set of strikes, it was immediately leaked, was allegedly aimed at "the presumed leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Qaaim al-Raymi," yet it turned out he was not among the dozens of people killed, though "U.S. officials believe one of his top deputies [unnamed] may have been killed." Then, after a second set of strikes on Thursday, it was claimed that "a Yemeni air raid may have killed the top two leaders of al Qaeda's regional branch," and an American Muslim preacher linked to Nidal Hasan, "the man who shot dead 13 people at a U.S. army base [Anwar al-Awlaki] may also have died."

But while ABC News had identified "the presumed leader of al Qaeda in Yemen" as "Qaaim al-Raymi" when he was the target of last week's strikes, Reuters decided that the "top two leaders of al Qaeda's regional branch" were completely different people -- "Nasser al-Wahayshi, the Yemeni leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and his Saudi deputy, Saeed al-Shehri" -- and then excitedly announced that they "may have been killed" by this week's air strikes. Whoever we claim we kill is the "key leader of Al Qaeda's operations"-- and it can change from day to day. And now, it turns out,, the "radical cleric" who reportedly spoke at length with the accused Fort Hood shooter and thus packs the most emotional punch for Americans is not dead at all, but "is alive and well following reports he may have been killed in a Yemeni airstrike against suspected al-Qaida hideouts."

It's painfully obvious that these assertions are made to overwhelm, distort and suppress any discussions of the actual effects of the attack -- who the strike really killed, whether it was justified, legal or wise, whether we should continue to drop bombs in more and more Muslim countries. Yet no matter how many times these claims prove to be false, American media outlets not only dutifully and mindlessly print them without challenge or skepticism, but also allow these claims to dictate their headlines and the overwhelming focus of their "reporting" on the attacks (U.S. Air Strike Said to Kill Top Al Qaeda Leaders). As a result, Americans are innundated with false claims about things that never actually happened -- pure myths and falsehoods -- while the actual consequences of our actions (the corpses of innocent Muslim men, women and children being pulled from the rubble) are widely disseminated in the Muslim world, yet are barely mentioned by our media. And then we walk around, confounded and confused, about how there could be such a grave disparity in perception among our rational, free and well-informed selves versus those irrational, mislead, paranoid, and primitive Muslims.

Because it's all done under the corrupt cover of anonymity, there's never any accountability (reporters will simply say that they printed this because their government sources whispered it in their ears -- so what choice did they have? -- and they'll keep the government officials' identity concealed to ensure they can never be questioned). The whole process is blatantly designed not to convey what happened, but to obscure what happened and to prevent any discussion of its consequences.

Full Article: http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/12/26/airstrikes

THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD

im watchin it



"So, did you hear the one about Canada making a huge splash at the COP15 Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen by completely reversing its climate change policy and setting aggressive new carbon reduction targets?

Well, then you've heard about a high-concept prank, which seems to have been perpetrated by someone willing and capable of going to dizzying lengths to show policymakers what they should be doing to combat climate change.

We're guessing this is probably the work of the Yes Men, obviously!"

READ MORE

TOTALLY DUPED MEDIA

Petition For The Washington Post To Become A Victim Of The Print Media Crisis

These guys are the fucking worst, and with everything that they do, they get worse. You may or may not have heard awhile back about the scandal they provoked when they began to set up "salons" in which lobbyists would pay large sums of money to the paper to have direct access to members of the Post's editorial and reporting staff. This was uncovered and subjected to a collective WTF by the rest of the world before it could happen, but the mere suggestion of something like this is upsetting to say the least.

Speaking of the Post's editorial staff, they are the worst. Nearly all of the intelligent liberal members of the staff have been pushed out in favor of people like David Broder. Here is David Broder, in an editorial published last Sunday:

"The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

"It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right."

Yes, you read that right. An Op-Ed columnist for one of the nation's most respected newspapers just said that the President of the United States needs to act first and think later, and even to knowingly make a poor decision that would cost the lives of American and Afghan troops and of the latter, no doubt, civilians. It gets worse when he explains the reasoning behind this opinion.

"McChrystal came up with a new plan of battle, emphasizing protection of population centers and requiring as many as 40,000 more troops. Eikenberry, we now know, balked, giving voice to the widespread fear that Hamid Karzai, the carry-over winner of the election that the ambassador helped arrange, was too weak and corrupt to govern the country effectively, even with an enlarged American force keeping order.

"Their disagreement was echoed and amplified throughout the Obama administration. The secretaries of defense and state came down on McChrystal's side; the vice president and many on the White House political staff with Eikenberry."

Now, the argument implied by including this in the column seems to be that the military knows best about military matters. This is arguably true in theory, but effectively false. The Pentagon will always argue for increased force in situations like this. This is how they receive funding and thrive as a dominant institution. Their voice should not be the only one, or even the primary one, given consideration in matters like this.

"In all this dithering, it's easy to forget a few fundamentals. Why are we in Afghanistan? Not because of its own claim on us but because the Taliban rulers welcomed the al-Qaeda plotters who hatched the destruction of Sept. 11, 2001. The Taliban also oppressed its own people, especially women, but we sent troops because Afghanistan was the hide-out for the terrorists who attacked our country."

This is pathetic. The argument that we are in Afghanistan to liberate its women holds no water whatsoever. This is an argument that always comes after the fact, to promote the continuation of American wars in the Middle East, and is never a primary consideration, or a consideration at all, until it has to be utilized as a talking point. Also, Broder mentions al-Qaeda as a reason for the commencement and continuation of the war without the slightest acknowledgement that they are no longer operating from within Afghan borders.

"But George W. Bush said -- and Obama seemed to agree -- that withdrawal was not an option.

"That imperative is reinforced by the presence of Pakistan, a shaky nuclear-armed power across a porous mountain border. If the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda cells already in Pakistan will operate even more freely -- and nuclear weapons could fall into the most dangerous hands.

"Given all of this, I don't see how Obama can refuse to back up the commander he picked and the strategy he is recommending. It may not work if the country truly is ungovernable. But I think we have to gamble that security will bring political progress -- as it has done in Iraq."

Note the mention of G.W.'s opinion like it holds weight. And of course, when all logic fails to serve your purposes, bring irrational fear into the equation. Broder shamelessly throws in that paragraph laced with fear-mongering of the most despicable kind, introducing the possibility of the collapse of the Pakistani government and subsequent deliverance of nuclear weapons into the eager hands of the Taliban with absolutely no proof or reason to back up this possibility.

Our press fails us once again.

Full article here.

The Immanent Death Of An Empire

The Independent recently published an article/interview featuring Gore Vidal, in which Vidal discusses the inescapable and immediate future of the United States, as he sees it, which is rapid decline. Vidal's points here are damn near irrefutable, as are many other similar arguments that are grounded in a good sense of history and a sober assessment of current world affairs. I'll excerpt some of the piece here, and also post a link to the full article at the bottom. This is a very interesting look back on the life of an incredibly interesting man. In case any of you don't know who Gore Vidal is, he is an American author and essayist. And:

"If anyone incarnates the American century that has ended, it is him. He was America's greatest essayist, one of its best-selling novelists and the wit at every party. He holidayed with the Kennedys, cruised for men with Tennessee Williams, was urged to run for Congress by Eleanor Roosevelt, co-wrote some of the most iconic Hollywood films, damned US foreign policy from within, sued Truman Capote, got fellated by Jack Kerouac, watched his cousin Al Gore get elected President and still lose the White House, and – finally, bizarrely – befriended and championed the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh."

"Yet now, he says, it is clear the American experiment has been "a failure". It was all for nothing. Soon the country will be ranked "somewhere between Brazil and Argentina, where it belongs." The Empire will collapse militarily in Afghanistan; the nation will collapse internally when Obama is broken "by the madhouse" and the Chinese call in the country's debts. A ruined United States will then be "the Yellow Man's Burden", and 'they'll have us running the coolie cars, or whatever it is they have in the way of transport'."

"'I was like everyone else when Obama was elected – optimistic. Everything we had been saying about racial integration was vindicated,' he says, "but he's incompetent. He will be defeated for re-election. It's a pity because he's the first intellectual president we've had in many years, but he can't hack it. He's not up to it. He's overwhelmed. And who wouldn't be? The United States is a madhouse. The country should be put away – and we're being told to go away. Nothing makes any sense." The President "wants to be liked by everybody, and he thought all he had to do was talk reason. But remember – the Republican Party is not a political party. It's a mindset, like Hitler Youth. It's full of hatred. You're not going to get them aboard. Don't even try. The only way to handle them is to terrify them. He's too delicate for that.'

"When he compares Obama to his old friend Jack Kennedy, he shakes his head. "He's twice the intellectual that Jack was, but Jack knew the great world. Remember he spent a long time in the navy, losing ships. This kid [Obama] has never heard a gun fired in anger. He's absolutely bowled over by generals, who tell him lies and he believes them. He hasn't done anything. If you were faced with great problems in chemistry – to find the perfect gas, to gas a population – you won't know for a long time whether it works. You have to go by what people tell you. He's like that. He's not ready for prime time and he's getting a lot of prime time on his plate at once.'"

"'Benjamin Franklin saw all this coming," he says. "I quote him because most Americans don't even know who he was now. In Philadelphia in 1781, when the constitution was being put together, he was an observer. He didn't want to have any part of it, and as he was leaving the Constitution Hall in Philadelphia a couple of old ladies said, 'Ah, Mr Franklin, what is going to happen?' He told them: 'Well, you're going to get a Republic, if you can keep it. But every constitution of this sort has failed since the beginning of time due to the corruption of the people.'"

"So the American people are corrupt? Americans weren't good enough for America? "'Precisely. They were only good enough to be a restive colonial power – or the dregs of one.'"

"But there is, he says with sudden perkiness, some "good news. Afghanistan will be terminal for the American empire, yes. Which is a happy way of looking at it. We'll be out of the empire game, rapidly. But it's too late for the country and the constitution." He raises his drink, and smiles ironically. "To a better republic," he says, and drinks in one long gulp."

Full Article

This Guy Is So Cool

Boys and girls (Do any girls read this blog? If so, comment in the replies and assert your feminine identity, because I'm really curious. Additionally, does anyone read this blog?), I would like to introduce you to Ken Silverstein, Washington Editor for Harper's magazine and blogger for Harpers online. Here is his comment on Barack Obama's recent decision to delay his meeting with the Dali Lama in order to curry favor with the Chinese government.

"Mind you, I think the Dalai Lama is an overrated gasbag who’s never accomplished much of anything, and that many Western supporters of the Holy Lord, Gentle Glory, Compassionate, Defender of the Faith, Ocean of Wisdom are dippy pretend Buddhists. Still, he does represent the people of Tibet and it’s sad that Obama appears to have even less courage than George W. Bush when it comes to accommodating the Chinese government."

An article cited by Silverstein points out that this will be the first time since 1991 that the Dali Lama will visit the United States and NOT meet with the president. Additionally, George W. Bush, of all people, was apparently the first sitting president to meet publicly with the Dali Lama. This isn't quite as shocking as it may seem, after a little reflection, when you take into account his vociferous hatred of those (i.e. China) who "hate democracy." (i.e. Him) Still, on the surface level, he is making Obama look bad by comparison, something I never conceived to be possible. Pretty disheartening.

The Impotence of Obama's Power

Some of you may have been asking, if you keep up with current events, WTF is George W. Bush still doing in the White House? A valid question, to be sure. He should not still be there! (EDIT: I was recently told he is actually no longer residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and apparently hasn't been for some months now. Additionally, and even more embarrassingly for me, he isn't even making policy decisions anymore. Fooled me!) Anyways, here is an article from the New York Review of Books about the inability of a modern US president to function in a way he might see fit due to the longtime accumulation of laws and responsibilities, both legal and illegal, that have increasingly factored into and distorted what exactly it means to be Commander in Chief of this once great country. Excerpts below, as well as a link to the full article. Enjoy, guys!

"But the momentum of accumulating powers in the executive is not easily reversed, checked, or even slowed. It was not created by the Bush administration. The whole history of America since World War II caused an inertial transfer of power toward the executive branch. The monopoly on use of nuclear weaponry, the cult of the commander in chief, the worldwide network of military bases to maintain nuclear alert and supremacy, the secret intelligence agencies, the entire national security state, the classification and clearance systems, the expansion of state secrets, the withholding of evidence and information, the permanent emergency that has melded World War II with the cold war and the cold war with the "war on terror"—all these make a vast and intricate structure that may not yield to effort at dismantling it. Sixty-eight straight years of war emergency powers (1941–2009) have made the abnormal normal, and constitutional diminishment the settled order.

"The truth of this was borne out in the early days of Barack Obama's presidency. At his confirmation hearing to be head of the CIA, Leon Panetta said that "extraordinary rendition"—the practice of sending prisoners to foreign countries—was a tool he meant to retain.^[1] Obama's nominee for solicitor general, Elena Kagan, told Congress that she agreed with John Yoo's claim that a terrorist captured anywhere should be subject to "battlefield law."^[2] On the first opportunity to abort trial proceedings by invoking "state secrets"—the policy based on the faulty Reynolds case—Obama's attorney gen- eral, Eric Holder, did so.^[3] Obama refused to release photographs of "enhanced interrogation." The CIA had earlier (illegally) destroyed ninety-two videotapes of such interrogations—and Obama refused to release documents describing the tapes."

"On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales signed a memo written by David Addington that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete." Perhaps, in the nuclear era, the Constitution has become quaint and obsolete. Few people even consider anymore Madison's lapidary pronouncement, "In republican government the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Instead, we are all, as citizens, asked to salute our commander in chief. Any president, wanting leverage to accomplish his goals, must find it hard to give up the aura of war chief, the mystery and majesty that have accrued to him with control of the Bomb, the awesome proximity to the Football, to the Button."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23110