“radical nationalists”

Louis Lapham, the editor of Harper’s, has come up with the phrase, “radical nationalists,” as a description of the party interests which currently control Washington, and thus the nation and already much of the world. Don’t call them “conservative.”
“Conservative” is hardly an accurate description of Bush, the Republicans, the corporatists and the religious fundamentalists whose agenda for change, well underway already, will clearly destroy the republic, and perhaps much more.

I don’t for a moment doubt the eager commitment to the great and noble project of “regime change,” but on the evidence ot the last eighteen months they’ve been doing their most effective work in the United States, not in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq. Better understood as radical nationalists than as principled conservatives, they deploy the logic endorsed by the American military commanders in Vietnam (who found it necessary to destroy a village in order to save it), and they offer the American people a choice similar to the one presented by the officers of the Spanish Inquisition to independent-minded heretics–give up your liberty, and we will set you free. [online text not available]

head for home!

[But first, a warning, home ain’t what it used to be.]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The State Department is sending a cable to embassies around the world telling Americans abroad to be ready to leave their resident country quickly if for any reason they have to, a U.S. official said on Friday.

Well, yes, the sky is almost certainly going to fall, but remember, they don’t hate us. Like us, they hate this government and lots of the things we do. Our best bet to begin turning things around: Impeach the miscreants–now! The administration is pretty free with the word “treason,”* but the charge could and should be directed toward themselves.
____________________
*How’s this?

“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”

hundreds of thousands, almost erased

Everybody out there knows I read the NYTimes, but that doesn’t mean I eat it up, and I don’t suggest such a narrow or uniform diet for anyone.
Today’s edition included on page A6 an image of the “Turmoil In Venezuela,” as the headline above the caption reads, but no news story, so it can’t be found online. Yes, there is a caption–five lines they give it–but no real story, no background or explanation. Other news sources (even our own government’s Voice of America News) featured the story prominently yesterday and today, but the Times must have decided it was too difficult to reconcile the story behind the image with the impression they have been giving for months that Venezuela is in the midst of a popular revolt against a mad dictator. The importance of the story, almost ignored by the Times, is suggested even in the few words of their own tiny item [my italics].

One of the hundreds of thousands of supporters of President Hugo Chávez who gathered yesterday in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital. They denounced a strike by the opposition that has slashed oil production. Several blocks away, an explosion killed one person, a 45-year-old man, and wounded 14. No one claimed responsibility.

political imprisonment and murder

The White House tells us that it’s up to Iraq to prove that it is innocent.

The Bush administration’s case against Iraq can be summed up in one sentence: Iraq has not led United Nations inspectors to the weapons Washington insists Baghdad is hiding.

But why should we be surprised at such arrogance and disregard for the niceties of international law? The current administration has been treating people this way for a long time.

A federal judge in New York attacked the Bush administration recently for defying his order to allow Jose Padilla, who is accused of being part of a plot to set off a “dirty bomb,” to meet with a lawyer. In case after case, the administration has taken the position that if it accuses someone of being a terrorist, he can be prevented from communicating with a lawyer.

If it serves their political purpose, anyone, even American citizens, can be held without trial or counsel or charges, and in some cases, murdered. It’s up to us to prove we are innocent, except that sometimes we’re offed first.

. . . November 3 of last year when Bush gave the green light for operatives to kill Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, a suspect in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. From 150 miles away at a base in the east African country of Djibouti, the CIA launched a remote-controlled unmanned drone to track al-Harethi, and when his car reached an open road in the Yemeni countryside, a Predator missile was fired from 10,000 feet overhead. Al-Harethi and the five other passengers in the vehicle were immediately incinerated.
One of those passengers subsequently turned out to be an American citizen.

monsters and idiots with big guns

Washington to world: “Drop dead!

“WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Washington shrugged off growing vocal opposition to a possible war on Iraq as big powers lined up to reject military action.
China and Russia, as well as Canada, joined France and Germany Thursday in opposing any rush to war. They said U.N. weapons inspectors should be allowed to continue efforts to disarm Iraq by peaceful means. Washington dismissed the objections, saying it would find other supporters if it decided to go to war.
“I don’t think we’ll have to worry about going it alone,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Washington after talks with Britain’s supportive Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

the wars on drugs, both wars

What a county! So, it appears we’re fighting a war on drugs at the same time we’re fighting a war on drugs. [Since we’re not making any progress in either campaign however, the White House claim that we can fight two wars at the same time remains just a dangerous boast.]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 — A military hearing into the deaths of four Canadians in an airstrike by two American pilots in Afghanistan has focused attention on the military’s long-held but little-known practice of using drugs to keep its weary forces awake and alert — or to help them sleep off the stress of combat.

But it seems that there’s more to this story than the NYTimes is willing to print. We have to go to The Village Voice for perspective. Read “The Guilt-free Soldier” in this week’s edition. The sub-headline, “A Pill That Wipes the Conscience Clean,” is a bit sensational, since the Pentagon doesn’t even have these drugs, yet, but horrendous issues await us just down the road.

Pills like those won’t be available to the troops heading off for possible war with Iraq, but the prospect of a soul absolved by meds remains very real. Feelings of guilt and regret travel neural pathways in a manner that mimics the tracings of ingrained fear, so a prophylactic against one could guard against the other. Several current lines of research, some federally funded, show strong promise for this.

the other Venezuela story

This report from Mother Jones is decidedly not what you hear in the North American commercial media, and in any event with its length it’s decidedly more information than we have come to expect from the media, regardless of bias. Don’t expect the same old same old.

Like most Venezuelans, Escobar has plenty of reason to be dissatisfied. Since Chávez won election in 1998, even many of his staunchest supporters believe he has mismanaged the economy and picked needless fights with the opposition. Under his leadership, Venezuela has fallen into severe recession: Factories are shuttered, inflation is soaring, and credit has disappeared. The government sits atop the largest reserve of oil in the hemisphere, yet upwards of 40 percent of Venezuelans still live in poverty. But despite the widespread economic misery, what upsets Escobar most is that Venezuela’s rich want Chávez out of power, now. Chávez, she says, is the only leader who has ever cared for Venezuela’s poor. “The rich have always had so much, and we, nothing,” she explains as thousands of marchers — mostly of mestizo or African descent — surge past, blowing whistles, singing, waving flags. “Now Chávez wants the rich still to have, but us too, a little.”

It’s not just a coincidence that the White House has taken such a special interest in President Chavez, a special interest exceeded only by its special interest in President Hussein.

But there’s little doubt that after Iraq, Venezuela is the oil-rich country where the White House would most welcome “regime change.”

But why does it look like Venezuelans themselves want a regime change? The American press and television tells us that the people want to oust their president, but this could hardly be the whole story even there were any sense at all in such a lazy explanation.

For three decades after the last dictator fell in 1958, the country was often held up as Latin America’s model democracy. There were two powerful political parties, both with a strong base of support among the upper and middle classes, both able to rally large masses of the poor via well-honed patronage systems. It was, everyone liked to say, just like the United States.
. . .
And when the big oil dollars started flowing in the early 1970s, it was a system that organized one of the longest-running fiestas of the 20th century.

After the riots of the late eighties, triggered by an attempt by the conservative government to pass on to the poor, through an austerity program, much of the bill for the consequences of a decline in oil receipts, Venezuela went through economic and political agony for nearly a decade. he period of strife included an unsuccessful coup attempt led by (then Colonel) Chavez in 1992, for which he served two years in prison. A civilian Chavez was elected president in 1998 with a record 56 percent majority, and a new constitution followed in 1999, drafted by a popularly-elected Assembly and approved by an overwhelming vote in December of that year.

What Chávez has done, through the new constitution, is to start a process of formalizing and solidifying their political power, channeling their anger through political institutions rather than the streets. “Venezuela is a time bomb that can explode at any moment,” Chávez said when the constitution was approved. “It is our task, through the power of the vote, to defuse it now.” Chávez threatens Venezuela’s elite because he wants to turn the mob of February 1989 into what he likes to call el soberano — “the sovereign citizen.” Which is reason enough, in a country where the poor and working class form a solid majority of the voting population, for the elite to want Chávez out.

Sharpton for candidate!

For starters, he’s more interesting and more his own man and woman than any of the others–and, not incidently, he’s the only one who has actually served time when he was arrested. Oh, and he’s the only presidential candidate who ever showed up at City Hall for an AIDS demonstration, bless him.
Jimmy Breslin in today’s Newsday:

Take some of these Democratic candidates we’ve had: Mike Dukakis, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and put them in a room and you’d open the window and jump out.
Sharpton may be stale in New York. But he is new practically everywhere else.
When crowds find that Sharpton can be exciting, and that he produces laughter with quick observations, he will have his moments as a candidate. He can use the language with more speed and fervor than anybody around. He is a master at “out of the past we see the future” phrases. About Martin Luther King, he told the crowd yesterday, “Celebrate the past. Fight for the future.”

He has credentials on real issues which should be the envy of any candidate–if they actually had any real interest in real issues.

He also knows more in five minutes about hospitals, schools, ambulance responses, prison sentences for the poor, welfare, food stamps and going into the service to fight wars than the rest of these presidential candidates have learned in their lives.
I don’t know how far he goes. But at the start, he will have some of them on the verge of throwing up after appearing with him.

don’t let them keep us invisible

Across the U.S. and abroad yesterday, and in some areas continuing today, hundreds of thousands of people refused to be robots in Washington’s plans for war.

Bush spent the weekend at the presidential retreat at Camp David. But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer made clear last week that the president does not see the growing protests as evidence that support is fading for his policy toward Iraq.
“Most people who support what the president is doing are not going to take to the street to say, ‘Disarm Saddam Hussein,’ “Fleischer said.

Maybe the NYTimes was saying something to Fleischer about the commitment of “those people who” want to bomb other people in this paragraph from its own coverage of the demonstrations:

Two hours before the start of the antiwar rally here, supporters of the war effort held a counter protest on the National Mall, southeast of the Vietnam Memorial. Fewer than 100 people — mostly from two groups, one called Move-Out and another called Free Republic — waved flags as “The Star Spangled Banner” played over a portable speaker.

During the period of the Vietnam tragedy it took ten years to build anti-war protest to this level. I’d like to believe Bush will be in very big trouble if he atacks Iraq, but then there’s such a disconnect in the White House between themselves and all reality here and abroad, they just might do it anyway.