[Peace-discuss] Notes on today

[C. G. Estabrook]

[From one of the best political blogs around, Left I on the
News: "A leftwing view of the day's news and the way it's
presented in the media." --CGE]


Tuesday, January 24, 2006

"Opposition" watch

George Bush and NSA head General Michael Hayden have been
defending their secret spying. What does the "opposition" have
to say? Harry Reid says Hayden's speech was "poorly
researched"! John Kerry says Bush "failed to explain why he
considers himself above the law"! If Hayden's speech had been
"better researched," or if Bush had a better explanation, why,
that would be just fine then. Not.

Here's something I haven't seen anyone (and certainly not the
Democratic "opposition") say about Bush's claims. Bush claims
that he's the Commander-in-Chief (my, how he loves those
words), that he's just "protecting us," that he can "use any
and all available tools -- including electronic surveillance
-- to guard against terrorist attacks," and that the
Congressional vote to authorize him to "use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations or
persons" involved with 9/11 gives him the authority to do what
he's been doing. If that's true, then why does he (and those
who speak for him) continually emphasize that this program
only applied to calls made by "known terrorists" outside the
United States to people inside the United States? Surely there
must be terrorists inside the United States (Tim McVeigh comes
to mind, just to name one) making calls to other terrorists
inside the United States? If Bush has all this power, why on
earth would it be restricted to the limited circumstances he
claims it was restricted to (not that we believe him, of
course)? Furthermore, one significant aspect of terrorism is
that it so often comes from people who aren't known (check the
recent bombings in London for an example). So if the President
can "use any and all available tools" to guard against
"terrorist attacks," he should be wiretapping and otherwise
spying on every single person in the world, since any one of
them could be planning a terrorist attack at this very moment.

And, if the technology allowed it, he probably would be.

// posted @ 1/24/2006 02:38:00 PM //  Comments (4)
 
"Democracy" and "capitalism"

Thomas Shannon, the State Department's top Latin American
official who was the highest-ranking American at the
inauguration of Bolivian President Evo Morales, has this to
say to the Wall Street Journal (online only to subscribers)
before he left:

    "There certainly is a battle of ideas taking place right
now which will very soon become a battle of results of showing
how democratic governments can deliver the goods. Cuba and
Venezuela obviously are on one side of the divide. It's not
clear where Bolivia will go."

Of course what Mr. Shannon really means is showing how
"capitalist" governments can deliver the goods. But he can't
come right out and say that, actually admitting that the U.S.
government, and not just its economic system, is capitalist.
Instead he goes with a lie, suggesting that Cuba and Venezuela
are not "democratic," and implying that if Bolivia dares to do
something like, say, nationalize its natural resources, that
that is somehow not compatible with "democracy," when in fact
it is practically the definition of democracy.

I also like the way there's a battle of ideas (that's Fidel's
phrase, of course, although neither Shannon nor the Journal
credits it) taking place "right now" and that will "very soon"
become a battle of results. It's kind of like Washington is
all of a sudden waking up to the fact that mining is an unsafe
industry and that, by gosh, there's actually technology
available that could make it less so. No, Mr. Shannon, this
"battle" has been going on for a long, long time, and you and
the people you represent are losing.

// posted @ 1/24/2006 10:25:00 AM //  Comment (1)
 
The "unemployment rate"

On more than one occasion I've talked about the fraud involved
in the allegedly decreasing "unemployment rate," basically
involving counting fewer and fewer people who by any
reasonable definition would qualify as unemployed. But Wiley
Miller says it more simply, and funnier too:


// posted @ 1/24/2006 10:12:00 AM //  Comment (1)
 
Rocky Mountain low

Going from one low to another, the American "justice" system
demonstrated its complete indifference to murder on the same
day the American President talked about "respect[ing] human
life." Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr., a man who
suffocated another man to death in the course of an
"interrogation," was convicted in a Colorado military court
not of murder but of negligent homicide and may be fined a
whopping $6,000 (he hasn't actually been sentenced yet; $6,000
is the maximum). His "punishment" was greeted by applause from
the soldiers in the courtroom. And how did Welshofer react? "I
deeply apologize if my actions tarnished the soldiers serving
in Iraq." Apologies to the family of the man he murdered, or
to the American people in whose name he was "fighting," or any
regrets for the murder itself? None. And what does his wife
have to say? "He's always said that you need to do the right
thing, and sometimes the right thing is the hardest thing to
do." Yes, suffocating someone to death was "hard," but it was
the "right thing" to do.

Welshofer's defense was that he was only following orders to
"take the gloves off," and that he wasn't given "clear rules."
I'm willing to bet that not only wasn't he given a rule
against stuffing someone's head in a sleeping bag, he wasn't
given a specific rule against pulling out his fingernails
either. Maybe even smashing his fingers with a hammer, one by
one. No doubt the people who received that kind of treatment
will surface in the future, if they haven't already. And we'll
be told the perpetrator was only following orders.

And how much is this outrage going to penetrate the American
consciousness? Precious little. In the paper I read, the San
Jose Mercury News, it received a 3 column-inch squib in the
"News in Brief" section; in the same section of the paper, a
train crash in Montenegro got 16 column-inches, a large
headline, and a picture. TV news hasn't even mentioned it.

// posted @ 1/24/2006 09:18:00 AM //  Comments (3)
 
Quote of the Day

    Ralph Nader once said his mother "took us out in the yard
one day and asked us if we knew the price of eggs, of apples,
of bananas. Then she asked us to put a price on clean air, the
sunshine, the song of birds -- and we were stunned."

Rose Nader, R.I.P.

// posted @ 1/24/2006 08:54:00 AM //  Comments (2)
 
Pity the poor, "anxious" U.S.

Bolivia's new President, Evo Morales, spent yesterday in "one
meeting after another that seemed destined to increase U.S.
anxiety," according to Knight-Ridder. And just were those
potentially anxiety-producing meetings? The first was with
Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage, who "discussed how Cuba,
which has exported thousands of teachers around the world, can
help Morales' government fight illiteracy." And the second was
with Hugo Chavez, who "signed a series of bilateral agreements
with Morales, including a deal to trade Bolivian soy for
Venezuelan diesel fuel."

Yes, I can definitely see how a bunch of Bolivian peasants who
can read and who have more fuel for generating electricity or
running equipment could be a major cause of anxiety. Not for
me or any other "regular" American, of course. But for the
U.S. government and the business interests they represent,
definitely. What will "these people" want next?

// posted @ 1/24/2006 08:29:00 AM //  Comments (6)
Monday, January 23, 2006

 
Quote of the Day

    Venezuela's vice president on Monday told top U.S.
Republican Sen. John McCain he could "go to hell" for
suggesting that "wackos" were governing the oil-producing
South American country. (Source)

Can I get an "amen"?

  ###