The Distant Ocean

Iran: Serious, responsible analysis vs. extremist rhetoric

Serious, responsible analysis:

One of the world's truly dangerous men, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left New York a clear winner this week, and he can thank the arrogance of the American academy and most of the U.S. news media's studied indifference for his victory.

If the blood-drenched history of the century just past had taught American academics one thing, it should have been that the totalitarian impulse knows no accommodation with reason.

... Italian fascism ... Benito Mussolini ... ardent young Black Shirts ... Nazi Germany ...Hans Luther, Adolf Hitler's ambassador to the United States ... Hitler's "peaceful intentions" ...

Extremist rhetoric:

The president of Iran is constitutionally weak. The real power in Iran lies in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei and other conservative Shiite clerics on the Council of Guardians. Just as they were able to stifle the reformist agenda of Ahmadinejad’s immediate predecessor Mohammed Khatami, they have similarly thwarted the radical agenda of the current president, whom they view as something of a loose cannon.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad’s influence is waning. The new head of the Revolutionary Guard Ali Jafari is from a conservative sub-faction opposed to the more radical elements allied with Ahmadinejad.

Serious, responsible analysis:

The almost willful refusal of commentators in the American media to provide their audiences with insight into just how sinister Ahmadinejad really is compounded the problem. ... He belongs to a particularly aggressive school of radical Shiite Islam, the Haghani, which lives in expectation of the imminent coming of the Madhi, a kind of Islamic messiah, who will bring peace and justice -- along with universal Islamic rule -- to the entire world. Serious members of this school -- and Ahmadinejad, who was a brilliant university student, is a very serious member -- believe they must act to speed the Mahdi's coming. "The wave of the Islamic revolution" would soon "reach the entire world," he has promised.

Extremist rhetoric:

This past Wednesday, I was among a group of American religious leaders and scholars who met with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York. ... The Iranian president impressed me as someone sincerely devout in his religious faith, yet rather superficial in his understanding and inclined to twist his faith tradition in ways to correspond with his pre-conceived ideological positions. He was rather evasive when it came to specific questions and was not terribly coherent, relying more on platitudes than analysis, and would tend to get his facts wrong. In short, he reminded me in many respects of our president.

Serious, responsible analysis:

...a man who hopes to see Israel "wiped off the face of the Earth," has denied the Holocaust and is defying the world community in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Extremist rhetoric:

With more than 200 nuclear weapons and advanced missile capabilities, Israel has more than enough deterrent capability to prevent an Iranian attack. Obviously, American deterrent capabilities are even greater. However, if you depict Iran’s leader as crazy, it puts nuclear deterrence in question and helps create an excuse for the United States or Israel to launch a preventive war prior to Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability.

In reality, though, the Iranian president is not commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so Ahmadinejad would be incapable of ordering an attack on Israel even if Iran had the means to do so.

The serious, responsible analysis comes from Tim Rutten, a media critic for the Los Angeles Times, writing from his widely-distributed mainstream media perch; it is by definition serious and responsible because it originates from a mainstream source and represents a mainstream perspective, and it will be read by a large audience (including people with policy-making power). The extremist rhetoric comes to us from Stephen Zunes, a progressive foreign policy analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus; again, it is extremist by definition, coming as it does from a purveyor of a marginalized and largely ignored political viewpoint.  It will be seen by a vastly smaller audience with little to no influence over policy.

The fact that the progressive analysis also happens to get it right time and time again (or be much closer to doing so) is, unfortunately, completely beside the point.  Nonetheless, that's why I look mainly to extremists like Zunes for a cogent analysis of the world around me, since--due to some serious character flaw, no doubt--I prefer to operate in a world of reality rather than a hysterical, propaganda-driven distortion of it.

One last point: as you may have gleaned from the excerpts, Rutten's overarching theme in his feverish tantrum is that mainstream media commentators in the United States are willfully refusing to portray Ahmadinejad as the sinister, truly dangerous, totalitarian religious fanatic that he is.  Like me, you may have somehow failed to notice the excessive moderation that's nearly universal in the major media with regard to Ahmadinejad and Iran; we're lucky to have serious, responsible commentators like Tim Rutten to open our eyes to this menace of caution.

Beaten senseless by dead vets in Heaven

This bit of news caught my eye:

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked criminal enforcement of a new Arizona law that bans sales of items that use names of troops killed in Iraq without permission of their families.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction sought by a man who sells anti-war T-shirts displaying names of American service members killed in Iraq. The T-shirts say "Bush Lied - They Died."

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake said the shirts are political speech and that enforcement of the law's misdemeanor sanction would violate Flagstaff resident Dan Frazier's First Amendment rights. ...

Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas have enacted similar laws.

Arizona's law was enacted last May with little debate by the Republican-led Legislature and took effect immediately upon the signature of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

First of all, kudos to Judge Wake.  It's good to see that even in a state with as many feliphobic conservatives as Arizona, there are still members of the judiciary who respect the First Amendment.  Second of all, isn't it strange how conservatives always seem to be so eager to toss the Bill of Rights in the toilet?  (No, of course it's not; I was just asking rhetorically, and besides, the bill passed with bipartisan support and was signed by a Democratic governor.)

But this was the part that really got my attention:

A slain Marine's mother who testified in support of the bill and has threatened to sue Frazier said it was hurtful that Frazier ignored the wishes of service members and their families by using names without permission.

"He's not a decent human being," [she] said. "Some day he's going to meet his maker and he's going to meet a lot of unhappy people."

The vision I get here is a freshly-deceased Frazier showing up at the proverbial pearly gates, greeted by St. Peter, Jesus, and God--all with arms crossed, and brooding darkly.  Behind them, rows and rows of Marines in uniform glower at him.  American flags are flying all around.  And before being sent to Hell, where he'll suffer the eternal damnation that all liberals deserve, Frazier gets a royal ass-kicking from the offended veterans.  "Hold him down, Jesus!"

And I always thought Heaven was about universal love.  Maybe there's more to it than that.

Now, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who loses a son or daughter in Iraq.  But the anger here is misplaced.  Unlike George Bush, Frazier didn't have anything to do with the deaths of these people, and in fact what he's doing is an attempt to keep more of them from dying--appealing to the one measure of loss that seems to matter to Americans (as opposed to the more than 1 million Iraqis who've died as a result of the Bush administration's lies).  And in terms of the law itself, regardless of your position on what Frazier is doing, this is about as clear a case of protected political speech as you can find.

More on the story here, if you're interested.

The paradoxically Jewish-friendly anti-Semites of Iran

In the aftermath of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University, the Jewish community in Iran released a statement condemning the treatment he received, which read in part: "The constant disrespect and disturbance demonstrated (during Ahmadinejad's speech at Colombia) prove once more that those claiming to be peace loving people have no real grasp of the concept."  There's not much more detail about the statement in that story, but the interesting part is that it was released at all.

During his trip, Ahmadinejad also met with a group of rabbis from the anti-Zionist group Neturei Karta in New York:

"You understand us and make a distinction between the violent behavior of Zionists and the religious beliefs of Jews," said the senior rabbi who called President Ahmadinejad "a pious man who is seeking to restore peace in the world and has humanitarian plans." Appreciating the rabbis for their gift, President Ahmadinejad said he was happy to visit them.

"All people in the world have now understood that Judaism is different from Zionism," said the president.

He added, "Zionists are a political group looking for taking advantage of the opportunities while Jews are the followers of the Moses who promoted peace and friendship."

Contrary to what the press here would have us believe, Ahmadinejad did not then rub his hands together, grin maniacally, and cackle out, "And that will be your undoing once I use my nuclear arsenal to take control of the entire world!  Fools!  MWAH HA HA HA HA HA!"

(If you prefer to have your news prejudged for you, you can read about this story as "Fringe Jewish Group Has Third Meeting with Ahmadinejad" from the Jewish Daily Forward, here, or "Radical Rabbis Cozy Up to Kook" from the New York Post, here.)

And finally, from a few months back, here's a Christian Science Monitor story about the Jewish community in Iran:

But despite what appears to be a dwindling minority under constant threat of persecution, Iranian Jews say they live in relative freedom in the Islamic Republic, remain loyal to the land of their birth, and are striving to separate politics from religion.

They caution against comparing Iran's official and visceral opposition to the creation of Israel and Zionism with the regime's acceptance of Jews and Judaism itself.

"If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not," says Ciamak Moresadegh, chairman of the Tehran Jewish Committee. "We have common problems with Iranian Muslims. If a war were to start, we would also be a target. When a missile lands, it does not ask if you are a Muslim or a Jew. It lands."

It's worth reading the entire thing.  If you do, you'll see that while it's clearly a bit paradoxical to be a Jew in Iran, it's nothing like living in the Warsaw Ghetto.

This kind of background is all worth keeping in mind as you read fevered attributions of anti-Semitism to Ahmadinejad himself or Iran generally; the reality, as usual, is much more tangled and complex.  It's particularly interesting to see the scrupulousness of the distinctions made in these cases between Judaism (or Jewish identity generally) and Zionism, since after years of concentrated efforts to conflate the two here it's almost impossible to discuss them separately--so much so that the very word "Zionism", which has a very specific and important meaning, has come to sound vaguely anti-Semitic to our ears.

Play the Greenpeace spawning game!

I've always thought Greenpeace is one of the coolest groups around; after all, how many progressive organizations have their own navy?  And I'm impressed at their ability to come up with creative ways to get their message out there (and how successful they are at getting things done).

Case in point: Deadliest Catch, a flash game in which you try to lose as few fish as possible while guiding your school of pollock to their Bering Sea spawning grounds and back.  Give it a try.  And while you're at it, take a minute to send a letter to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to ask them to prevent overfishing in the North Pacific and the Bering Sea.

Since we're on the topic of spawning (how often do you have a reason to write that in your lifetime?), here's my own contribution: "Spawn and Spawn", set to the tune of Stephen Bishop's "On and On":

Down in the river
There's not much to do,
Avoid the fish hooks and the heron too,
But once each year, there's a time I am free,
To try to increase my fecundity

Spawn and spawn,
I just keep on swimmin',
Looking for those fishy women,
Spawn and spawn,
Spawn and spawn,
Spawn and spawn.

Spawn and spawn,
Every trout I know,
Wants to fertilize some roe, yeah,
Spawn and spawn...

Spawn and spawn,
See those salmon tryin',
Into a bear's mouth they're flyin',
Spawn and spawn...

The Iraq war: it's not all bad news

With over 1 million Iraqis killed, it's easy to be gloomy about the Iraq war.  But I think it's important to remember that this dark cloud does have a silver lining:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense stocks on Wednesday hit new highs as Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested an extra $42 billion in funding from Congress to cover military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008.

The AMEX Defense Index, which tracks 14 major defense company stocks, rose 14.25 to a high of 1,686.72 in afternoon trading. Since last year, the index has risen roughly 47 percent, outperforming the broader S&P 500 index, which has climbed nearly 15 percent over the same period. ...

Wall Street and industry executives have sought to assure investors there will be little disturbance in military spending over the next several years -- regardless of who succeeds President Bush in the White House or the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq as proposed by Gen. David Petraeus.

If that doesn't cheer you up, I guess you've got different priorities than Wall Street.

Lee Bollinger: fearless denouncer of US-designated dictators

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger blasted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, accusing him of exhibiting "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."  I have to wonder if Bollinger is actually familiar with the definition of the word or with Iranian politics in general, since 1) Ahmadinejad was in fact democratically elected in 2005 and 2) he's largely a figurehead, since ultimate authority for domestic and foreign policy rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (hint, Lee: that's what "Supreme Leader" means). 

As I was watching Bollinger's grandstanding recitation of valid criticisms freely intermingled with Bush administration talking points--a veritable blueprint for the demonization script that's being used to set the stage for war with Iran--I started to wonder if Bollinger reserved his dudgeon only for US-designated enemies.  An article today in the Nation pointed me to the (unsurprising) answer, in the form of Bollinger's handling of a similar event with General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan in September 2005.  Here are some excerpts I've transcribed from Bollinger's introductory encomium for Musharraf:

Rarely do we have an opportunity such as this to greet a figure of such central and global importance.  It is with great gratitude and excitement that I welcome President Musharraf and his wife, Sehbah Musharraf, to Columbia University.  ...

We at Columbia are eager to listen.  As a community of scholars and as students and faculty who come from everywhere in the world, we take a great scholarly and personal interest in what the President has to say.  The development in Pakistan over the past several years, from its economic growth to its fight against extremism and terrorism, are vital issues for all of us.  Mr. President, as you share your thoughts and insights you will give our students, the leaders of tomorrow, first-hand knowledge of the world their generation will inherit.

And here's yet more of Bollinger's fawning during that event, from Pakistan's presidential web site itself (via Angry Arab):

"President Musharraf is a leader of global importance and his contribution to Pakistan’s economic turnaround and the international fight against terror remain remarkable - it is rare that we have a leader of his stature at campus," said Lee C Bollinger, the President of Columbia University.

After delivering his introductory speech, Bollinger rushed home to transfer the print of Musharraf's boot from his tongue onto a piece of paper, so he could frame it, hang it above his desk, and admire it lovingly every day.

Bollinger's unwillingness to distinguish an elected president from an actual, flesh and blood dictator, and his eagerness to point out the crimes of official enemies while whitewashing those of official allies, extends to Columbia's World Leaders Forum itself.  If you look at their bio link for Musharraf, you'll see this creative rendition of history:

General Pervez Musharraf assumed the office of chief executive of Pakistan in October 1999, having been appointed chief of staff of the army a year earlier. After calling general elections in 2002 and then restoring the constitution, he became president and commander of the armed services of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in October of that year.

They source their biographical text completely to a BBC article about Musharraf.  So what does that BBC article actually say?

General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 which was widely condemned and which led to Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth until 2004. ...

In 2002 General Musharraf awarded himself another five years as president, together with the power to dismiss an elected parliament. The handover from military to civilian rule came with parliamentary elections in November 2002, and the appointment of a civilian prime minister.

General Musharraf has retained his military role, reneging on a promise to give up his army post and to become a civilian president.

"Seized power in a bloodless coup"?  "Awarded himself another five years as president"?  No, no, no, that will never do.  Let's see...how about "assumed the office of chief executive of Pakistan" and "became president"?  Yeah, that's much better.

It's rare that you get such a crystal clear demonstration of the willingness of intellectuals and institutions to restrict their criticisms to officially-designated enemies.  It would be nice if Bollinger's rank hypocrisy were only laughable, but unfortunately it's also very dangerous; his eagerness to embrace the Bush administration's Iran propaganda, and to do so in a high-profile forum, has helped move us one step closer to war.

(To clarify one thing:  I'm all for bozos like Ahmadinejad being confronted and dressed down.  But I'll take it seriously the day I see someone like Bollinger do it to Henry Kissinger, or Bill Clinton, or Ehud Olmert, or George Bush, or....)

UPDATE: Dennis Perrin has much better jokes in his version.

UPDATE 2: Is Ahmadinejad an anti-Semite, and is Iran a hotbed of anti-Semitism?  A brief look here.  And the difference between serious, responsible analysis and extremist rhetoric on Iran, here.

Portrait of a right-wing hero

In his own deluded, ignorant, self-aggrandizing words, here's Fred Peterson--the cowardly "Gathering of Eagles" thief who stole the photo of Carlos Arredondo's dead son from the casket that Carlos was pulling through the streets in the recent protest in Washington, D.C.:

[I felt] a camaraderie of high principle and enervated a keen sense of obligation to preserve and protect these worthy veterans from the predations of those lessers who insult their country and cause ...

I saw the photo-image of a proud young Marine in dress blues being held hostage in company not of his own choosing and affixed to a coffin not his own.

The insult to his honor and disrespect to his Corps and cause by his captors was immediately obvious and intended. These same peddlers of provocation are paid to push their coffin-prop all over the country they revile. They subvert a common will and undermine the cause and country for which this hostage-Marine had sacrificed his very life.

The captive Marine was not among his own.  He was surrounded and outnumbered by those who shamelessly exploit his image and memory, disgrace his uniform, his brothers in arms, and his willing sacrifice. He would never choose such company. He needed a rescue...

I liberated his image from the midst of the hostile crowd, intending to replace it in a position of honor Arlington, where he would rest with heroes and among his own ...I respectfully carried the image of the fallen Marine and was not opposed nor confronted in any way until I has walked perhaps 25 yards down the sidewalk. There, I was attacked without warning and tackled from behind by a demonstrator who crashed into my back at a full run. I went down forward, tearing pants knees and shirt sleeve and five separate wounds requiring hospital attention. The Marine's image, along with camera and sunglasses were smashed into the pavement.  Before I could respond, six or so Eagles-vets were immediately pulling me away from the anti-war attacker.

I've long thought that one useful way to think of the military is as a cult, with guns; this is about as good a demonstration as you can get.  After reading it, I think you'll agree with me that it's unlikely that Fred Peterson has ever encountered "lessers" in his lifetime.

More about this shameful event at AfterDowningStreet.org (with photographs of the "liberator" and his goons).

Give peace operations a chance

Until a few days ago I hadn't heard of the International Peace Operations Association.  Based on the name you'd think, hey, operations for peace?  Less talk, more action?  That's great!  These folks really have the right idea!  Let's read what they have to say about themselves:

The idea for the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) stems from the belief that more can be done to ensure that international efforts to end conflicts succeed and a clear recognition that the private sector can play a larger role to fundamentally improve peace and stability aspirations of societies affected by conflict.

Ending conflict and helping societies reach their peace and stability aspirations?  Who could argue with that?  These guys out-Gandhi Gandhi!  Tell us more!

Our member companies currently work in every peace operation in the world, doing everything from demining to logistics to air lift to armed security.  Every day they prove that the private sector can provide the services critical to successful peace and stability operations, both cost effectively and ethically.

Uhh..."armed security"?  Hmm.  And here are some of IPOA's members:

• Blackwater, USA
• DynCorp International
• MPRI

Yes, you've seen through my charade: the International Peace Operations Association is, in fact, the industry trade group for the mercenary industry.  And here's an example of the kind of "peace operation" that Blackwater ("the world's most comprehensive professional security, training, peace support, and stability operations company," according to the IPOA member page) has been carrying out lately:

Blackwater's security men are accused of going on an unprovoked killing spree. Hassan Jabar Salman, a lawyer, was shot four times in the back, his car riddled with eight more bullets, as he attempted to get away from their convoy. Yesterday, sitting swathed in bandages at Baghdad's Yarmukh Hospital, he recalled scenes of horror. "I saw women and children jump out of their cars and start to crawl on the road to escape being shot," said Mr Salman. "But still the firing kept coming and many of them were killed. I saw a boy of about 10 leaping in fear from a minibus, he was shot in the head. His mother was crying out for him, she jumped out after him, and she was killed. People were afraid."

At the end of the prolonged hail of bullets Nisoor Square was a scene of carnage with bodies strewn around smouldering wreckage.

And yet more details of this (stability-enhancing, no doubt) operation:

The [Blackwater] convoy had initiated the shooting when a car did not heed a police officer and moved into an intersection.

“The traffic policeman was trying to open the road for them,” he said. “It was a crowded square. But one small car did not stop. It was moving very slowly. They shot against the couple and their child. They started shooting randomly.”

In video shot shortly after the episode, the child appeared to have burned to the mother’s body after the car caught fire, according to an official who saw it.

You know, when I think about it, I'm not sure I understand just how infants fused to their mother's charred remains either produce peace or enhance stability.  Maybe I should contact IPOA and ask them to explain it to me.

The legend of the removed checkpoints continues

In the news today:

Despite repeated promises to reduce the number of roadblocks in the West Bank, Israel has in fact added dozens of new ones, according to the United Nations.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak promised U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week to remove 24 roadblocks and consider additional alleviations of movement restrictions on the Palestinians. This followed a similar promise to alleviate movement restrictions that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

However, the number of roadblocks has now reached 572, an increase of 52 percent compared to 376 in August 2005, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). In the past two months alone, Israel put up 40 new roadblocks, OCHA said.

This is standard fare for Israel, as Ran HaCohen documented a few months ago.  Keep this in mind any time you hear about Israeli promises to ease restrictions on the Palestinians.

Supporting the troops, Eagle-style

Here's an object lesson in how to support the troops, courtesy of Kit Lange of Gathering of Eagles:

During the GOE rally, we were alerted to a moonbat in our perimeter who wouldn’t leave.  Jake and I walked up to her and asked her what she was doing in our midst, holding up a sign talking about the old “no blood for oil” lunacy.  Somehow, the knowledge that Jake had to see this woman and her sign made me so furious that for a moment, I had no words.  She smiled at me condescendingly, waiting for me to say something.

“Do you realize that this man standing next to me lost his arm so you have the right to wave that idiotic sign?  What is wrong with you?  How dare you dishonor our vets this way?!” I sputtered.   I quickly learned the reason for her condescension, as she grabbed the dogtags around her neck and pushed them toward me.

“I’m a vet, too,” she told me proudly in that tone of “moral authority” that they love to trumpet.  “I served.”  I was aghast, and as I turned to look at Jake, his face went flush.

“You’re a disgusting piece of trash,” I spat out at her. Jake walked away, telling her she was a disgrace not even worth his words.

As per my posting a few days ago, "disgusting trash" appears to be Lange's favorite epithet for people who disagree with her (if you read the rest of her report, you won't be surprised to learn that her vocabulary is as limited as her ability to respect opposing viewpoints).  I also find it interesting that she chose "spat" as the verb, given how utterly obsessed the Gathering of Eagles types are about soldiers and spit.  Maybe they should change their name to "Gathering of Angry Hypocrites."

Non-snarky analysis: what this illustrates, with crystal clarity, is that when many war supporters use the phrase "support the troops" they really mean "support the policy."  For all their yellow ribbons, bumper stickers, and crocodile tears, they don't care one whit for the troops--unless those troops happen to hew to their ideology of militarism, nationalism, and obedience to (right-wing) authority.

Was the Israeli attack on Syria a dry run for an attack on Iran?

So asks the UK Observer regarding Israel's recent attack on Syria:

The journalists who had turned out in large numbers were there for another reason: to question [the head of Israel's airforce, Major-General Eliezer] Shkedi about a mysterious air raid that happened this month, codenamed 'Orchard', carried out deep in Syrian territory by his pilots. ...

Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft. ...

Operation Orchard can be seen as a dry run, a raid using the same heavily modified long-range aircraft, procured specifically from the US with Iran's nuclear sites in mind.

It's possible.  What's not in much doubt, though, is that if Iran had carried out an attack even remotely analogous to this one, the entire country would now be a smoking hole.  But niceties like international law and treaty obligations are just bludgeons to be used against official enemies when it suits our purposes--not binding on us or our minions.  So Israel can have nuclear weapons and it can bomb and harass its neighbors at will, with US support and consent.

I couldn't help laughing at the line about "Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s."  Translated, that means "US-made F-15s and F-16s transferred to Israel, purchased with US citizens' tax dollars paid directly by the US government to Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and flown by Israeli pilots" (and utilized in textbook violation of the US Arms Export Control Act, as is typically the case with Israel).  These kinds of constructions may mislead people in the West, but not the victims; when Israel attacked the West Bank and Gaza in 2002, the Palestinians knew exactly who was paying for the bombs and bullets, as you can see from this photo taken by a friend of mine:

And in talking to Palestinians during my trip I found that not only were they fully aware of who was paying for the destruction, but they were intimately familiar with the damage caused by each particular US-supplied weapon system.  Even the children could tell me, that building was bombed by an F-16, that car was attacked by an Apache, and so on.

It's a shame that we're expected to set information like this aside as we ponder the deeply perplexing question of why they hate us, since it certainly would make it easier to answer.

An interesting protest report

Mike Ferner, a member of Veterans for Peace, reports on the September 15th anti-war demonstration in Washington, highlighting the participation of veterans.  Well worth a read.  An excerpt:

One sight, never before seen in a protest march nor certainly any parade in the nation, was the IVAW “color guard.” Geoff Millard, President DC Chapter of IVAW, dressed in full desert camouflage barked, “IVAW. Fall in. Columns of four.” Immediately, to the front of the rows of veterans marched seven of their number, each holding erect a different flag.

Following tradition, the U.S. flag was in the lead, except this time it was upside-down. In a straight line followed six more flags, all black, each with a different corporate logo — one for Halliburton Corp., Bechtel Corp., Lockheed-Martin Corp., Blackwatch Corp., CACI Corp., and Dyncorp Corp — all on the very short list of winners in this conflict. ...

The IVAW’s confident message came under attack as their front rank approached a thousand or so angry, screaming people calling themselves “A Gathering of Eagles,” occupying three blocks of sidewalk reserved for them by police. Their snarled taunts and invective were quickly drowned when the vets bellowed in unison, “Support the Troops. WE ARE THE TROOPS!” Then in one of the most memorable moments of the day, IVAW Board of Directors member, Adam Kokesh, marching in command alongside the color guard, ordered, “Column, HALT! Left FACE!” whereupon he spun on his heel, faced the angry crowd, and held for several long seconds his best USMC salute. The surprise maneuver left the gathered eagles momentarily taken aback and the crowd cheering.

Read it all here.

I particularly liked the last part, since I forced myself to suffer through a few minutes of the Gathering of Eagles rally on C-SPAN last night--and painful it was indeed to watch war fetishism and blind nationalism taken to such an extreme.  I thought I understood the depths that these people could reach until I read that one of them had stolen the photo of Carlos Arredondo's dead son (a Marine, killed in Iraq) from the casket that Arredondo was pulling through the streets.  When Arredondo jumped on him to try to take it back, he was attacked and beaten by a mob of these hateful nimrods.  After the altercation, the thief reportedly told some young admirers (Marine recruits, apparently) that "one drop of your blood is worth more than all of theirs, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise."  And if you check the Gathering of Eagles web site you'll see that they talk about feeling "fury at the disgusting trash that spilled into the streets of our nation's capital."  It's instructive to see how natural it is for people like this to adopt the language of fascism.

(If you think I'm overdoing it in pulling out the f-word, here's one extended description: "Elements include nationalism; hostility to ideals of equality; hatred of minorities, degenerates, and deviants; élitism; hostility towards the ideals of liberalism, and in particular towards freedom of expression; the cult of the charismatic leader or Übermensch; belief in the destiny of the race; and a love of political symbolism such as uniforms and other emblems of militarism."  Like, say, eagles and flags.)

Setting aside this descent into the depths of American shame, it's a very interesting report, and it's heartening to hear that veterans are participating in the anti-war movement in larger numbers.

UPDATE: There's a photo of the Marine recruits (they of the worthy blood) talking to the their hero at the bottom of the page I cited.  Look at their faces.  Today they're just barely-out-of-high-school kids; in a few weeks or months, they may well be killing human beings in Iraq.

Microsoft, our benevolent god

The most unabashed worship of corporate dominance that I've read in a long time comes courtesy of Investor's Business Daily, here.  Read it if you think you can stand it.  To give you a taste, here's the lede:

Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) , a company that has enriched millions and provided an immeasurable boost to the global economy, is being treated like a criminal in Europe ...

An EU court in Luxembourg ruled Monday against Microsoft's appeal of the European Commission's shakedown of Bill Gates' software giant. It all stems from March 2004, when the EU's unelected bureaucracy fined Microsoft more than $600 million and directed it to share its code with competitors.

I know I spend hours every week counting the ways in which Microsoft has enriched me: critical security patches for broken software, system hangs and crashes, price gouging, stifling innovation, and so on.  What personality flaw makes these socialist Europeans unable to see that Microsoft's sole effect has been to make our lives better?

According to IBD, it's seething resentment of the size and success of our benevolent god--though these scheming bureaucrats are careful to disguise their true feelings with arcane legal terminology:

The justification for the shabby treatment of a company that has done nothing but increase the world's prosperity is that it was too big and too successful. Regulators and lawyers avoid that sort of language, though, and instead use weasel words such as "monopoly," "market dominance," "dominant position" and "abuse" to rationalize and enforce vague and antiquated antitrust laws.

Yes, just as government officials refused to admit that they simply felt an irrational animosity toward Jeffrey Dahmer and instead used weasel words such as "mass murder," "necrophilia," and "cannibalism" to justify their obstruction of his innovative approach to interpersonal relationships.  As a reality check about the "nothing" that Microsoft has done, here's the concluding point of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings of fact against Microsoft from 1999:

412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest.

Compare this paragraph (and the extensive evidence that Jackson adduces to support it) with IBD's version of reality:

Regulators and lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic who take down big companies because they feel the need to justify their jobs or are guided by a compulsion to shape the world around their ideals are the enemies of innovation.

When the reward of success is legal trouble, punitive fines and a possible company breakup, the incentive to innovate with an eye on growth and profit is curbed.

This last talking point--regularly invoked by the Uncle Toms of corporate control of our world--is one of my all-time favorites: that corporate officers, deeply discouraged by [taxation, enforcement of the law, government regulation, the inability to treat workers the way they did in the 1800s, etc, etc], will simply give up on their relentless pursuit of profit and leave us all foundering in a world bereft of ever-bigger plasma screen HDTVs.  Ah, if only that were true.

The fact is that the judgments against Microsoft in the US and Europe have benefited all of us by forcing Microsoft--and other companies as well--to treat the laws that limit their power a little more seriously.  And anything that serves to curb corporate power, no matter how slightly, is a step in the right direction.

...Puppies

It's been a little too serious around here lately.  Maybe we need to remember what it's all about.  Maybe it's time for...puppies.

Puppies.

(If your first thought was, what, only two?, you need to go here.)

Ok, one more, courtesy of that last link:

I know I feel this way at least once every day.

Financing chainsaw murderers no big deal

The US government has just helped to clarify the difference between terrorism that deserves aggressive prosecution and terrorism that's not really worth making a fuss about.  Illustrating the latter:

Federal prosecutors won't seek terrorism-related charges against five former officials of Chiquita Brands International Inc. following an investigation into whether they aided the company's illegal payments to a violent Colombian group. ...

"The United States gave serious consideration to bringing additional charges in this matter," prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in the sentencing memo. "In the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the United States has decided not to do so."

For details of just what Chiquita did, let's go to the Department of Justice's press release of 3/19/2007:

For over six years – from sometime in 1997 through Feb. 4, 2004 – Chiquita paid money to the [right-wing paramilitary] AUC in two regions of the Republic of Colombia where Chiquita had banana-producing operations: Urabá and Santa Marta.  Chiquita made these payments through its wholly-owned Colombian subsidiary known as "Banadex."  By 2003, Banadex was Chiquita's most profitable operation.  Chiquita, through Banadex, paid the AUC nearly every month.  In total, Chiquita made over 100 payments to the AUC amounting to over $1.7 million.

...nearly half of which was paid after the AUC was (finally) officially designated as a terrorist organization by the US on September 10th, 2001.  The DoJ goes on to say:

For several years Chiquita paid the AUC by check through various intermediaries. Chiquita recorded these payments in its corporate books and records as "security payments" or payments for "security" or "security services." Chiquita never received any actual security services in exchange for the payments.

Apparently when they say that "Chiquita never received any actual security services" they mean that the AUC never posted night watchmen or installed chain-link fences around Chiquita facilities.  A less disingenuous observer might point out that the AUC's achievement of making Colombia the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists year after year would count as a major "security service" to Chiquita, and could even be part of the reason that Banadex had become "Chiquita's most profitable operation" after six years and $1.7 million worth of payments.  It certainly sounds like Chiquita  got their money's worth to me.

A lawsuit (pdf; press release here) filed against Chiquita alleges that their involvement with the AUC went far beyond monetary payments:

40. Chiquita, through Banadex, operates a private port facility at the Colombian municipality of Turbo, used for the transport of bananas and other cargo.  The arms ship docked at the Chiquita port, and Banadex employees unloaded the 3,000 assault rifles and 2.5 millions rounds of ammunition.  These arms and ammunition were then transferred to the AUC.

And just what was the AUC doing during this time with the money they were receiving from Chiquita and others?

The victims were dragged into the town slaughterhouse. Amid chains and meat hooks, they were bound, suspended and interrogated. Where are the guerrillas? Are you a guerrilla? The men had machetes and chainsaws. Whatever the victims said, however they pleaded, they lost a hand. An arm. A leg. Finally, almost mercifully, they were decapitated.

That's just a sample; there's more here, if you have the stomach for it.  Chiquita knew full well the kinds of unimaginably brutal atrocities the AUC was committing, but continued financing them even a year after first admitting to the Justice Department that they'd done so.  They finally stopped in 2004, as the push for "demobilization" of the AUC and other paramilitary groups was picking up steam (and so the benefits of the "security services" the AUC could offer--with machetes and chainsaws--were presumably dwindling).

So the moral of the story seems clear: if you're planning to finance terrorists as they torture and slaughter thousands of innocent people, first check carefully to make absolutely sure that the terrorists you're supporting have the same ideological goals as the US government, and if at all possible, try to be a major corporation.  Otherwise you might end up spending some time in jail.

Chomsky's thoughts on Iran

Via Alexander Cockburn, here are Noam Chomsky's thoughts (acute and deeply informed, as always) on the probability that the Bush administration will attack Iran:

They're desperate. Everything they touch is in ruins. They're even in danger of losing control over Middle Eastern oil -- to China, the topic that's rarely discussed but is on every planner or corporation exec's mind, if they're sane. Iran already has observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization -- from which the US was pointedly excluded. Chinese trade with Saudi Arabia, even military sales, is growing fast. With the Bush administration in danger of losing Shiite Iraq, where most of the oil is (and most Saudi oil in regions with a harshly oppressed Shiite population), they may be in real trouble.

Under these circumstances, they're unpredictable. They might go for broke, and hope they can salvage something from the wreckage. If they do bomb, I suspect it will be accompanied by a ground assault in Khuzestan, near the Gulf, where the oil is (and an Arab population -- there already is an Ahwazi liberation front, probably organized by the CIA, which the US can "defend" from the evil Persians), and then they can bomb the rest of the country to rubble. And show who's boss.

Actually I disagree with him about the likelihood of a ground assault.  As insane as the Bush administration may be, they know that the global response to an unprovoked attack on Iran would likely be nothing short of ferocious, and so I'd guess they would attack with little or no warning and try to limit the attack to as short a time period as possible (e.g. the three days mentioned in this analysis, or even fewer) in order to nullify organized resistance in the US and throughout the world.  A ground assault would be too uncertain and would take too long.

I'm sickened more than I can say by the thought that these bloodthirsty fools are plotting in every way they can to add yet more bodies to their mountains of innocent dead.  As useless as it is, I offer my apologies to the people of Iran for the crimes my country has committed against you in the past, and for the more direct and terrible crimes it is contemplating now.  I only hope we can stop it.

Remembering September 11th

Thanks to Democracy Now! for this:

And also on this date -- on Sept 11 1973, US-backed Pinochet forces rose to power in Chile to overthrow the democratically-elected Salvador Allende. Allende died in the presidential palace. On Sept 11 1990, American anthropologist Myrna Mack was murdered by US-backed Guateleman security forces. On September 11, 1977 in South Africa Steve Biko, founder of the black consciousness movement, was being beaten in the back of a van by apartheid forces. He died in the early morning hours of Sept. 12, 1977. On 9/11 1993, in the midst of the US-backed coup in Haiti, Antoine Azenery was dragged out of a church by coup forces and murdered in broad-daylight. He had been commemorating a massacre of parishioners at the Saint John Boscoe church that had occurred five years earlier on September 11, 1988. Father Jean Bertrand Aristide had narrowly escaped death in that attack. He later became president of Haiti.

(...only to be deposed by yet another US-backed coup in February of 2004.)

And on September 11th, 2001, nearly 3000 Americans died as a result of blowback for crimes just like these--innocent people paying the price (who else ever does?) for actions they'd likely never even heard of.

News flash: RFID chips can cause cancer

In case you missed it, a recent AP story details links between RFID transponders and cancer:

A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that [RFID] chip implants had "induced" malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

"The transponders were the cause of the tumors," said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich. ...

"There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members," said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

The results are preliminary and it's unclear if humans would have similar reactions to implanted RFID chips, but really, wouldn't you go along with Dr. Benezra on this one?  And while there's no way I'd voluntarily get one of these things implanted in my body anyway, what does this mean about the safety of RFID tags in clothing (especially given that the implanted tags associated with the tumors were apparently encased in glass)?

The RFID industry's reaction is just what you'd expect:

What is of obvious concern to the greater RFID industry is that this news will associate RFID with cancer in the minds of the general public. Look for media-savvy Albrecht to facilitate such misconceptions; she has already supplemented her preferred epithet "spy chips" with the even more scathing "cancer chips".

The question is whether people will make some sort of psychological association between cancer and human implantable chips, or cancer and the term "RFID". For the sake of broader acceptance and adoption of the technology, hopefully it will be the former.

(Hey, I already associate RFID with "privacy invasion", "Big Brother", and "corporate intrusion into every corner of human life"--so why not cancer as well?)

The "media-savvy Albrecht" they mention is Dr. Katherine Albrecht, who prompted AP to pursue this story.  Along with her associate Liz McIntyre, Albrecht has been fighting the good fight around RFID and privacy protection in general for many years now (see here and here for more information).  Albrecht and McIntyre are smart, well-organized, and--as this story illustrates--very effective at getting information about RFID to the public.  We're lucky that people this good are working on this issue.

Amy Goodman asking tougher questions

A few months ago I wrote about how disappointed I was to see Amy Goodman spend an hour tossing softballs (with just one thrown overhand) to Wesley "if you want to invade Haiti, I mean, it's not illegal" Clark.  Today she broadcast an interview she'd done with Jimmy Carter, and I'm glad to say that while she didn't cover the full range of the Carter administration's crimes, she did at least ask him both about selling weapons to Indonesia during its genocidal attack on East Timor and about his dealings with the Shah of Iran.  She didn't push either issue particularly far, but I can forgive it more in this case, especially given the different circumstances (a private interview at the Carter Center vs. a veritable campaign warm-up event for Clark) and the fact that Carter has done a good bit to expiate his sins, unlike Clark, who's tried to use his as a springboard to greater power.

Regarding East Timor, Carter basically invoked Reagan's Iran-Contra excuse:

AMY GOODMAN: I was wondering, in your time as president, the period that Indonesia occupied Timor, if you regret the allowing of Indonesia to buy US weapons at a time when it was one of the worst times for the people of Timor?

JIMMY CARTER: Well, as you may know, I had a policy when I was president of not selling weapons if it would exacerbate a potential conflict in a region of the world, and some of our allies were very irate about this policy. And I have to say that I was not, you know, as thoroughly briefed about what was going on in East Timor as I should have been. I was more concerned about other parts of the world then.

This is somewhat self-serving but also more believable than it was in Reagan's case, since East Timor was doubtless little more than a blip on the radar (though even if Carter had been paying more attention than he admits to, I don't doubt that the policy would have been the same, since US interests were clearly aligned with Indonesia in this case).

So if Carter wasn't paying attention as his administration increased the flow of US arms to Indonesia to help it slaughter East Timorese, who was?  None other than Richard Holbrooke; you can read about his role here.  Yes, that's the same Richard Holbrooke who's currently one of Hillary Clinton's main foreign policy advisors, and a frontrunner for her Secretary of State should she win the election--which is as good an indication as you could ask for of just how much of a "change of course" we can look forward to if that happens.

In any case, it was good to see Amy Goodman being a little more willing to ask tough questions.  I'm hoping this is a return to the kind of fearlessness I'd come to know and respect from her in the past; I guess we'll see for sure if she interviews another Democratic presidential candidate (potential or otherwise).

Reality just keeps intruding on Israel

Human Rights Watch has released another report debunking the Israeli talking point that Hezbollah used "human shields" during the Israeli attack on Lebanon and is therefore directly responsible for the 1000+ civilian lives that Israel snuffed out.  AP summarizes the report as follows:

In its harshest condemnation of Israel since last summer's war, Human Rights Watch charged that most of the Lebanese civilian casualties came from “indiscriminate Israeli air strikes,” according to a report to be released Thursday.

In a statement issued before the report's release, the human rights organization said there was no basis to the Israeli claim that civilian casualties resulted from Hezbollah guerrillas using civilians as shields. Israel has said it attacked civilian areas because Hezbollah set up rocket launchers in villages and towns.

Israel responded exactly as you'd expect, in the person of Mark Regev (who in my experience makes Joe Lockhart, Ari Fleischer, and Jamie Shea look like sterling candidates for Diogenes):

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev rejected the report's findings.

"Hezbollah adopted a deliberate strategy of shielding itself behind the civilian population and turning the civilians in Lebanon into a human shield," he said, charging that Hezbollah "broke the first fundamental rule of war in that they deliberately exploited the civilian population of Lebanon as a human shield."

As I've noted before, ample evidence demolishing this claim was already collected and analyzed by Stephen Zunes in his typically thorough fashion--so the new HRW report is just one more bit of reality to throw out there when you see this tired canard being brandished by Israel's hasbara army.  In that same article I mentioned that Congress had passed a resolution condemning Hezbollah for its use of human shields; let us all now hold our collective breath as we wait for them to pass a new resolution correcting this error, and condemning Israel for its murderous assault.

Someone should also notify Mitchell Wallerstein, Dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.  Maybe I will; I'd be genuinely curious to see what his response might be.