ARMS HYPOCRISY; BLISSFUL BIKING

Large news organizations rarely give sufficient coverage to the findings of important reports. Today, though the New York Times did not put it on the front page, where it rightfully belongs, it did tell its readers about a new study from the World Policy Institute that’s deeply troubling.

It reveals the United States' central role as a supplier of weapons that fuel ongoing conflicts – ones where human rights violations are rampant. The hypocrisy, given all the palaver from the White House, and many Americans’ incorrect understanding of this country’s true role in world affairs, is stunning. Read a bit here from the WPI report’s executive summary, and then send it to friends who buy the peace talk coming from Washington:

>Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation. Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries. As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, while pledging comparable high-tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts, ratcheting up tensions and giving both sides better firepower with which to threaten each other. Far from serving as a force for security and stability, U.S. weapons sales frequently serve to empower unstable, undemocratic regimes to the detriment of U.S. and global security.

>Among the key findings of this report are the following:

>In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million).

>In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

>When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003-- a full 80%-- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.

>The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion. These years coincided with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the run-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The biggest increases in dollar terms went to countries that were directly or indirectly engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, including Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan ($191 million increase), Pakistan ($224 million increase) and Bahrain ($90 million increase). The Philippines, where the United States stepped up joint operations against a local terrorist group with alleged links to al-Qaeda, also received a substantial increase of FMF funding ($47 million) from 2001 to 2003. Military aid totals have leveled off slightly since their FY 2003 peak, coming in at a requested $4.5 billion for 2006. This is still a full $1 billion more than 2001 levels. The number of countries receiving FMF assistance nearly doubled from FY 2001 to FY 2006-- from 48 to 71.

BLISSFUL BIKING

On May 11, as an unidentified plane raised alarms as it headed toward the White House, President Bush was blissfully unaware. He was out at the time, enjoying a bike ride in Maryland. An article in today’s Wall Street Journal takes a serious look at the question of how much information the White House ought to pass along to the president.

What interests me even more about this is that it’s one in a continuing series of insights into the president’s attitude toward work. Namely, that doing a good job necessitates a balanced life, plenty of breaks, exercise, etc. Even if that means leaving the office in mid-morning on a weekday for a lengthy spin.

I don’t actually disagree with this, provided he really does some work the rest of the time. But I suspect that, as in so many things Bush, there’s an elitist double standard in effect here. The Bush Administration has been, if anything, hostile to efforts to create a more humane environment for America’s workers.

Perhaps someone can ask the president at his next press conference whether he thinks all Americans should be entitled to a moderately flexible schedule, substantive rest breaks, etc, as long as they’re getting the job done. Oh, and maybe a reasonable minimum wage while they’re not-biking, not-treadmilling, but shoving pallets around a warehouse floor or potatoes into a deep fryer for eight grueling hours a day. Being president is tough, sure. But the other stuff is nothing to sniff at. Really -- he should take our word for it.

##
- posted by Russ @ 7:58 AM

NEWSFLASH

(this from Texans for Public Justice):

>In the first civil lawsuit alleging misuse of corporate money in the Texas 2002 state elections to go to trial, Travis County District Judge Joseph Hart today ruled that Tom DeLay's Texas political committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) violated Texas campaign law when it failed to disclose more than a half-million dollars in corporate contributions. Judge Hart awarded $196,660 to the five plaintiffs, all Democratic candidates who lost in 2002.

This is big news. Because it means DeLay's people were knowingly directing illegal corporate money into Texas to win elections as part of a broader scheme to redraw Congressional district lines and increase the GOP majority in Congress. We all know what that has meant -- in terms of the kinds of things Congress does for moneyed interests, and the kinds of people it thinks ought to preside in federal courts and represent us at the UN and elsewhere. Corporations have been promised -- and have gotten -- all kinds of goodies for funding the power grab.

It's a precarious and corrupt house of cards that keeps this government operating as it does. And we all know what can happen to houses of cards. Can you hear a breeze starting to rustle through the room? Think I can.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:26 AM

KORANGATE SPUTTERS; SPARE $2?; CATAPULT THE PROPAGANDA

Last year, those who did not want to talk about President Bush’s military service record took delight in bashing CBS 60 Minutes Wednesday program for a report based on improperly authenticated memos that raised questions about Bush’s explanations about why he stopped flying well before his Air National Guard obligations ended. Simplified: a new ‘media scandal’ trumped an old ‘presidential scandal.’ The media scandal won out, and we never did hear much more about the domestic service gaps of a man who would end up, paradoxically, sending scads of poorly-prepared National Guardsmen into combat in Iraq.

Flash forward half a year. Now, the media scandal is about Newsweek’s sourcing and precision in reporting on allegations that Islamic detainees at Guantanamo Bay had been humiliated by deliberate desecration of the Koran by interrogators. As with the 60 Minutes report, the administration has done everything it can to focus attention – and outrage – on the messenger.

In the case of 60 Minutes, people lost jobs, and a program and network suffered irreparable damage to its reputation. In the case of Newsweek, fortunately, attention is being focused on what really matters: what this country is doing in battling terrorism, and whether, through the actions of our military and intelligence personnel, we are improving things, or making them worse.

Today’s papers have stories about newly released documents showing that Guantanamo detainees had repeatedly complained about acts like the one reported by Newsweek. The articles note that the charges have not been “substantiated.” I’m not sure how you substantiate someone’s claim that someone else tossed a Koran in a toilet. Still, they are helpful in reminding us that while Newsweek and its anonymous source may have gotten some particulars on the incident wrong, and jumped the gun, they were not wildly off-base in addressing the topic.

Which is: how well-trained and restrained are US interrogators? Are they uncovering information that will reduce the threat of terrorism? Or are they victimizing those may have done little or nothing nefarious, and breeding a whole new batch of hatred?

SPARE $2?

Tiny Reuters wire item today about how the African Union is soliciting $460 million from international backers so it can triple its peacekeeping force in the Darfur region of Sudan, where war (mostly brutal raids by government-backed militia on civilian settlements) has left more than 180,000 dead.

Growing the peacekeeping force, which is made up of people from that continent – as it should be – would cost all of $2 per person if Americans alone agreed to fund it. Seems a pretty small price to halt a tragedy on its way to being another Rwanda.

Of course, funding mechanisms are infinitely more complicated, but if Americans let it be known to Congress they’d like this sort of urgent, positive action funded, the US can certainly help make it happen.

CATAPULT THE PROPAGANDA

President Bush has an intriguing candor gene. Sometimes, in the pursuit of a persistent lie, he tells the truth about it. One example came Tuesday (via Slate/Buzzflash)

Bush was speaking to a crowd in Greece, New York (that ain’t Greece, folks, and that ain’t New York City, but the kind of place Bush feels more comfortable, population 64,000 or so, Rochester suburb, practically in Canada but without the health insurance).

Here’s what he said, to applause:

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

(Remember, that line actually generated APPLAUSE from the audience. No word on whether they understood what he was saying, or just clap at anything.)

Bush, it appears, has trained himself to say “the truth” when he means something else entirely, just as when he says “the American people believe” he means something else entirely. But when he talks about “catapulting the propaganda” or “spending political capital,” that’s just what he means.

Those lapses into authenticity come from cockiness, but he’s likely to get a little warning to tone it down next time he talks to Karl Rove and Karen Hughes.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:20 AM

VIVA VOINOVICH; DIGITAL AFTERLIFE; INDEPENDENT COFFEEHOUSES

Recently, I chastised Senator George Voinovich for going only halfway in expressing his conscience. He had labeled John Bolton, the brutish Bush UN ambassador-designate, "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be" – and then abstained from voting on his nomination in committee, thereby allowing it to pass to the senate floor.

I sort of doubt that Voinovich reads Baker Muckraker, but who knows? He’s now doing the right thing, circulating a letter urging GOP colleagues to vote against Bolton, and even making calls and meeting with other senators. This is an act of almost astonishing bravery for a Republican in the era of Karl Rove-style vendettas.

This would be a superb time for the public to back him up. Calls and e-mails of support to his office – and to possible swing voters (Senators Hagel, Chafee, Murkowski, Thune, and there may be more) might make a difference. Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121, and direct phones and e-mail addresses may be found here. Don’t delay – floor action on Bolton begins TODAY.

DIGITAL AFTERLIFE

Who doesn’t feel guilty every time they upgrade computers and end up tossing out a perfectly good if no longer loved earlier model? Some of us manage to donate our old computers and other electronic equipment, but it’s a huge hassle to find a recipient. That’s why landfills are full of the stuff – and the EPA says 70 percent of the toxic substances inside leach into the environment.

The New York City Council may have a useful solution. It is considering a law requiring manufacturers to take back discarded devices, as noted in the New York Times today. Manufacturers and distributors oppose state and local laws, but say they agree on recycling – provided there is one national standard. I’m not sure which is the way to go, given how reticent our national leaders are to do anything truly “life-enhancing” for anyone already on this planet– but this is an idea whose time has come.

If you like the concept, talk to your local officials, and ask them what they’re doing about it. After all, as the cliché kinda goes, if something computes in chaotic New York, it can anywhere.

INDEPENDENT COFFEEHOUSES

Love ‘em. I go out of my way to support non-chain coffeehouses, which usually have better environments, better coffee, and create a unique neighborhood-y feeling that’s of incalculable value in our lives. I’ll be talking more about such things from time to time, but welcome your ideas on this – and your reports on whether the independent coffeehouse is surviving and thriving in your community, despite the Starbucks onslaught. I’m at russ(at)russbaker.com

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:23 AM

IN ONE DAY; REVOLVING PRISON DOOR; BUT SYRIASLY, FOLKS

Every few days, I try to stop and think about what is going on in Iraq. It is just too easy to start treating the situation there as normal life – like an Israeli inured to bus and café bombings, or a Palestinian to daily degradations and humiliation.

But we’re part of something deeply shocking – something we will all look back upon and have to pinch ourselves to make sure we really lived through it. What did we do about this, we may ask ourselves? What role did a government operating in our name have in this carnage?

Here’s today’s summary of Iraq developments in the past 24 hours. from Slate:

>The Post alone fronts about 60 Iraqis killed in mostly terrorist attacks around the country. (The other papers reefer the bombings.) Ten Iraqis were killed and roughly 100 wounded by the bombing of a popular falafel restaurant in Baghdad. Another 20 to 30 people were killed by two car bombs outside a Shiite community center near Mosul. Late last night another car bomb outside a Shiite mosque south of Baghdad killed 10. Also, a top Iraqi national security official was assassinated. And the military announced that five American soldiers had died over the weekend.

>Everybody mentions that Iraqi and U.S. forces have launched what military officials described as their biggest counter-insurgency sweep yet in Baghdad—"20,000 U.S. troops backed 15,000 Iraqi soldiers," says the LAT. The NYT cites officials saying Iraqi forces are in the lead. Whatever the case, everybody says about 300 suspects have been arrested.

>Nobody reports from the Baghdad neighborhood where the sweeps are still happening—except Knight Ridder (which credits an Iraqi employee on the story). "They came here and detained people randomly," said one candy-store proprietor, who then took off after hearing an approaching chopper. One Shiite politician told KR, "These random attacks on people and houses gives the insurgents a bigger base."

Nobody wants to hear bad news without ideas for solutions – it’s just too depressing. So let me say this: merely talking about the chaos, the seeming endlessness of it, the amazing fact that some high official of the fledgling government is killed almost every single day – this is taking action. If enough people keep talking about this, keep pointing out the lie that things are improving or that the administration had any idea what it was getting itself into or what to do once it was in -- that's action.

Once this becomes the national conversation, on a daily basis, you’ll see accountability begin to mean something, and you’ll see better minds pressed into service to begin unwinding this disaster.

REVOLVING PRISON DOOR

Nice piece on page one of today’s Wall Street Journal (online by subscription, or buy a copy), about the difficulties faced by ex-cons who want to make something of their lives. Gary Fields describes the life of a 38-year-old single mother, two years out of prison following a nine-year prison sentence for transporting crack cocaine. She’s a model employee at an Applebee’s in Queens (promoted to supervisor, named employee of the year, etc) who at midnight takes several buses and subway lines to a shelter for female ex-cons where she lives with her daughter. That’s because local rules bar ex-cons from public housing. This is just one of the endless hurdles faced by former prisoners trying to make good.

>For years, the thinking among law-enforcement officials and politicians was that this was the price people should pay for breaking the law. Now there is an emerging belief that the larger price is being borne by society, since the practical barriers facing ex-prisoners make it more likely that they will slip into a life of crime.

The US taxpayers’ tab for prisons is above $60 billion a year, seven times what it was 20 years earlier. It is certainly much, much cheaper to actually help these folks out than it is to continue to make life miserable for them. And if that isn’t enough motivation for some to do the right thing, maybe the fact that it keeps these people from also making our lives miserable will mean something.

To read a two-year study about the problem, and the solutions, see AFTER PRISON: ROADBLOCKS TO RE-ENTRY , then, if you’re so moved, check out the list of groups working for change.

BUT SYRIASLY, FOLKS

Recently, I expressed skepticism about administration claims that Syria was aiding and abetting insurgents in Iraq.

Well, according to today’s New York Times, in a piece headlined “Syria Stops Cooperating with U.S. Forces and C.I.A.,” Syria itself was so disgusted with those “unjust” allegations that it has decided to now become uncooperative.

> American intelligence officials have said Syria has provided important assistance in the campaign against Al Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks. In recent months, senior Pentagon officials and military officers say, cooperation between the two nations has included low-level communications across the border between captains and field-grade officers of the American-led alliance and their Syrian counterparts.

Let’s see. That means that when the administration started saber-rattling against Syria, it knew just how much help the Syrians were actually providing, rather than helping out the bad guys. But did you know that? I don’t believe the media outlets that reported the original charges did anywhere near their job at the time – a job that would have required a few phone calls and then the guts to immediately call the accusations false. I’m betting that more Americans will come away from this episode armed with incorrect conclusions. That’s the objective of this nonstop bluster machine, and preventing that is supposed to be the job of a vigorous press.

##
- posted by Russ @ 10:37 AM

GOOD NEWS; NAZI-NOT; COUNTER-COUNTERFEIT; STARRY WARS

Good News. Seriously. There isn’t a whole lot, but the papers today certainly have a few developments we can celebrate.

For one thing, the UN is steadily getting its peacekeeping act together. As the New York Times’s able Marc Lacey reports, they’re actually using muscle to preserve the peace and to protect lives. In Congo, where millions have died in a brutal civil war while the West hardly noticed, UN troops are using aggressive military tactics to stop brutal thugs – helicopters, armored personnel carriers, door to door searches – and they’re firing back when they come under attack.

The notion that UN troops might be so bold as to be so bold is a wonderful one. For years, the international agency has stood by while horrific acts took place – in Rwanda, in former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. Now, critics of the UN who prefer unilateral US action everywhere will have to at least admit that the global community, acting together, can accomplish something humane, meaningful, and concrete. It’s also a feather in the cap of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who is under constant attack for ineffectiveness.

Still, there will be a need for tremendous care in training, supervision and oversight to ensure that this motley collection of troops doesn’t get carried away, or begin committing atrocities themselves. If they can find the right balance, this could be a turning point in the search for a permanent mechanism for reducing the slaughter that is still a hardy perennial. It is also a crucial answer to the ‘imperium’ crowd who still argue that the US can and must be the world’s policeman.

GOOD NEWS, PART II: REASONABLE EVANGELISTS

I’ve long been a fan of the Rev. Jim Wallis, probably the leading voice for true godliness in America Christianity. I had a sandwich with him about five years ago in LA, and found him as sincere and passionate in person as on the stump. Since then, his movement to take back religion from the radical right has continued to grow, as has his publication, Sojourners. According to a Times article today, even at Calvin College, a small evangelical school in Grand Rapids, Mich, a heavily Republican area, faculty and students made their concerns known about the policies of President Bush, who spoke at commencement. Ads signed by hundreds of students and faculty, which appeared in the local newspaper, deplored Bush’s policies on wealth, the environment and war, and said that his deeds “do not exemplify the faith we live by.”

After the last election, where all the talk seemed to be about Red and Blue States, and about the unanimity of evangelicals, one heard isolated small voices explaining that things were not so simple. Indeed they are not. Howard Dean (see my recent Razor article on him) seems to know it, Jim Wallis knows it, and all of us ought to know it. There’s a market for decent, people-oriented policy throughout this land. The coming battle is going to be about re-taking the language so that this sizable group of evangelical consciences out there may be reached.

NAZI-NOT

The Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial today froths over because some International Red Cross official, in an angry encounter with US military authorities at Camp Bucca, a detention facility in Iraq, used the “Nazi” word. The Journal can get as worked up as it likes about the overuse of the Nazi epithet, but this episode is hardly unique.

I don’t hear the Journal complaining about the extensive use of the Nazi and Hitler comparison with all manner of administration foe. As bad as Saddam Hussein was, he was just as bad when he was a US friend, but when he fell from favor, administration folks promoted the “Hitler” comparison. When Bush Senior invaded Panama, he did the same with former friend Manuel Noriega. Just do a word-search on “Hitler” or “Nazi” – the use is everywhere, for any situation that really bothers someone.

From what we know of the camps holding suspected combatants in our name, and of the frequency with which the prisoners turn out to be innocent, and about the horrendous beatings and other forms of abuse, the terminology is clearly not applied with precision, but applied with sincerity and passion. Would that the Journal’s opinion writers cared as much about the real situation out there as they did about controlling the language.

COUNTERING COUNTERFEIT

A piece in the Times’ business section, by Tom Zeller Jr, about the impact of blogs, re-introduces a frequent journalistic error. Zeller writes that CBS News was taken in by “what turned out to be forged Vietnam-era documents relating to [Bush’s] National Guard days…” Unless Zeller knows something I don’t, that’s an incorrect assertion. I spent much of last summer and fall in Texas examining the Bush National Guard story (and have a Deadline Club award to prove it – see my homepage) – and I saw copies of those documents around the same time as CBS. I’ve examined many of the claims by so-called document experts, and done a bit of sleuthing with typewriter manufacturers from that epoch. One thing is clear: nobody yet knows with certainty that those documents are fake. There’s evidence they may be, probably are, fake, but we can’t be absolutely sure, and no panel of top document and typewriter experts has ever done a proper inquiry. Until then, let’s stop saying we know for sure.

STAR WARS HEROES

Seeing all these adults walking around my neighborhood in Star Wars regalia, clearly convinced that they’re heroes in some imaginary battle for the future of the earth, or the galaxy, or whatever, I can’t help wondering – how many of these people actually do anything to make sure that the real world will still be here in another 40 years? How many of them are even registered to vote? I’ve got no beef with the movie itself, but as for these 35-year-old caped wonders, I just gotta ask.

##
- posted by Russ @ 10:58 AM

FILLIBUST-UP; DISINGENUOUS QUOTE OF DAY; BUSH GRADE

That Senate battle over the filibuster is great theatre. NY Times today has long articles with a sort of play-by-play of the hand combat and elaborate chessmanship going on. Some Hollywood type ought to recognize that this would make an eminently watchable movie, what with all the sleaze, the conniving, the pompous pontificating pompadours backed by Machiavellian yet madeforhollywood-attractive aides who do the real dirty work.

Here’s a sampling of what goes into making our government better serve the people:
>Both sides have mapped out detailed blueprints akin to the tabletop exercises the military uses for war. Eric Ueland, Dr. Frist's chief of staff, said Republican aides had been engaged in "moot court style" briefings, trying to predict what moves Mr. Reid might make, and how Dr. Frist could react. Mr. Ueland said he and his colleagues had been "plowing through 200 years of Senate history, 1,400 pages of Senate precedents and every Senate rule."
>Because Republicans are in the majority, Dr. Frist controlled the timing of the confrontation, and Mr. Ueland said Republican aides determined as far back as last winter that if a showdown over judges had to take place, it would occur in May. It was a "natural point" in the schedule, Mr. Ueland said - after the budget debate and after Republicans had pushed through some of Mr. Bush's legislative priorities, including bills to change the way class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy filings are handled.

DISINGENUOUS QUOTE OF THE DAY
From the Times coverage of the wrangle over Bush’s court nominees:
>Dr. Frist met Thursday with black clergy members who support his push to end the filibusters.
>"Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?" asked one of them, Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., of a nearby Maryland suburb and an organizer of the event. "Because a black woman, everybody knows, is not going to be ruled by the Democrat or Republican party."
Um, wondering if Bishop Jackson might like to consider one of the 99 percent or so of black women whose views differ on everything from Bush’s far-right nominee for the appeals court, Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Bush’s specialty in always finding those very very very few people who exactly don’t represent the views of their so-called “constituency”, like Brown, like Alberto Gonzales, is really something to behold in the chutzpah department.

BUSH GRADE

Speaking of The Man, eagle-eyed Eric Umansky at Slate points to this doozy from inside the LA Times, about the sanitizing of Bush’s social security “town meetings.”

>A piece inside the LAT picks up a memo in which the White House told a group about to host a presidential chat "who he would like to visit with." Among the general requests was one for a young worker who "knows that [Social Security] could run out before they retire." Shortly after, the president made his appearance and asked one 22-year-old citizen-panelist if she "has any thoughts about Social Security?"

>"Yes," she said. "I don't think it's going to be there when I retire, which is really scary."

>"Got anything else you want to say?" asked the president.

>"I really like the idea of personal savings accounts," she responded.

>"You did a heck of a job," Bush said. "You deserve an A."

Me, too, Mr. President, Me too want an A. Seems so easy to get, too. (Must have been like that at Yale, huh, Mr. President?)

##
- posted by Russ @ 10:33 AM

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IS A GAS; BECOMING ARGENTINA; BACKBLOG

Living in New York City, I don’t need and don’t have a car. But when I get out on the road in a rental car? Like someone in a glamorous ad, there's no holding me back. The wheels spin on gravel and in cranium, and the thoughts are feverish: Aren't SUV's a safety hazard not just for all the reasons so widely discussed but simply because those of us stuck behind them can't see anything up ahead at all, including, say, stop signs or traffic lights? What happened to looking through the windshield ahead of you? And, more urgently: Why are truck stops so creepy and banal here and so pleasant in, say, France, or Venezuela?

Speaking of which, what are all those gas stations that have sprouted everywhere, the “Citgo” brand? I guess I assumed that they were perhaps part of some US conglomerate, such as CitiBank, or Stop n Go. Nope, they’re from VENEZUELA. As I learned from Jeff Cohen’s blog (via Progressive Review ), Citgo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, and there are 14,000 Citgo stations in the US. That’s pretty amazing.

Especially since the Bush administration just hates the Venezuelan government and its dangerous insistence on limiting the movements, income and resource depletion activities of multinationals that had pretty free reign before it came to power. Venezuela has had a rough row to hoe in recent years – as I saw myself on an end-of-year visit – and things can only grow tighter as unsympathetic governments (like ours) put the squeeze on. Cohen says “by buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela’s democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans.” I’ll keep you posted on any input from Texaco on what it’s doing in the public interest, but in the meantime, "fill it up with regular, amigo."

BECOMING ARGENTINA

My favorite Washington Postie (by leaps and bounds, I’d say), the troublemaking Dana Milbank, covered a press conference on a… slightly important topic: The catastrophe that awaits us without dramatic action on the federal debt. It was a joint presentation of the US comptroller and one liberal and one conservative think tank. Regarding the future US budget, the comptroller predicted, "The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt…The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina." (I guess that means we'll have Venezuelan gas and Argentine-style economic disaster, a strange twist on that inter-hemispheric cooperation the White House talks about.)

How was this significant warning received? Well, it wasn't, according to Milbank. He notes (as does Slate’s Today’s Papers) the rather spotty attendance and coverage:

>>There were no cameras, not a single microphone, and no evidence of a lawmaker or Bush administration official in the room—just some hungry congressional staffers and boxes of sandwiches from Corner Bakery.

I hear that President Bush saw the Post item, and was, indeed interested. According to my unimpeachable (if imaginary) sources, the President exclaimed: “Corner Bakery? Let’s check that out.”

CLEARING THE BACK(B)LOG

Some things have been lying around, vying for my attention and starring status in this blog. Their appearance in an untimely fashion is no reflection on their urgency – simply on my poor filing system. I’ll bring them up from time to time. Here’s one:

An April 10 New York Times front-pager on the US government seeking permission to comb hundreds of millions of bank records for signs of suspicious money transfers that might be related to terrorism. Presumably that will reveal more than some people want known about expensive beauty treatments they order from Panama, but will it really help stop terrorism? Somewhere in that article came the answer:

> Terrorist money has been difficult to identify, much less seize, in part because terror operations are conducted on relative shoestring budgets. Planning and operations for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were believed to have cost Al Qaeda $400,000 to $500,000, with no unusual transactions found, according to the 9/11 commission, and the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa cost only $10,000.

So, um, who’s for this new intrusion? If anyone is following the path of this initiative, which grew out of a “brief, little-noticed provision in the intelligence reform bill,” I’d love to hear what, if anything, privacy advocates in Congress have to say.

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:08 AM

BUSH JUDGE RIGHT; MILLER MELLOWS?; SUICIDAL MUST-READ; BRIT WARNINGS

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but controversial federal appeals court nominee Janice Rogers Brown actually seems to have done something right and gotten slammed for it. According to an article in today’s New York Times, she was a passionate lone dissenter in wanting to quash the conviction of a black man arrested for drug possession after being stopped for riding his bike the wrong way on a residential Los Angeles street. She thought that this was a case of racial profiling, and I suspect she is right. The LA cops are pretty notorious in this regard, and, indeed, would a white person have been so treated?

MILLER MELLOWS?

Reading Judith Miller’s piece today on the testimony of British parliamentarian George Galloway, accused of profiting from illicit oil deals with Saddam Hussein, I was struck by the (at least momentary) improvement in her work quality. Have all the complaints – including mine –, about her bias had their effect? Editors at The Times couldn’t pull her off the long-running UN corruption story with so much attention on her, so they appear to be somehow directing her back into what begins to look like traditional journalistic methods. Bravo. The piece gives a fairly good sense of the freewheeling nature of the congressional inquiries into the oil for food program, and included Galloway’s spirited accusations that the US was investigating foreigners to obscure its own sanctions-busting activities. Whether Galloway did or did not do anything wrong remains to be seen – so far, the evidence is mostly circumstantial, and, under oath, he insisted that he had not been involved, directly or indirectly, in Iraqi oil dealings. Based on some remarks, and on his unwillingness to answer some pointed questions, Galloway doesn’t look like an angel, though. It’s likely that plenty of people profited – all over the place. If Galloway is made to walk the plank, let’s hope that everyone else is, too. Including US officials who looked the other way, and US nationals who benefited.

SUICIDAL MUST-READ

Check out Robert Pape’s op-ed in the NYT today on motivations for suicide bombers. The University of Chicago political science professor makes a powerful case that suicide bombers are primarily politically-motivated, and that religious extremism is far less important a factor than commonly believed. He reviews the history of suicide bombings worldwide, and notes that many of the bombers aren’t even religious at all. In most cases – in Sri Lanka, in Israel/Palestine, in Lebanon, and, yes, in Iraq, it is largely a political protest against perceived occupation by foreign forces.

BRIT WARNINGS

The Telegraph (via Prorev.com ) reports that top British defense officials warned US commanders in Iraq that, based on their experience with Northern Ireland, their aggressiveness in opening fire on civilians was courting disaster: “US troops have the attitude of shoot first and ask questions later. They simply won’t take any risk…I explained that their tactics were alienating the civil population and could lengthen the insurgency by a decade. Unfortunately, when we explained our rules of engagement which are based around the principle of minimum force, the US troops just laughed.”

##
- posted by Russ @ 10:05 AM

UN RIGHT WAY AND WRONG; NYT DOES JOB; IMAM BIN-LIMBAUGH

Anyone who’s read my criticism of Judith Miller’s reporting on the UN in the New York Times ought to know that it isn’t any particular conclusions I abhor, it is a transparent agenda for getting to those conclusions, and a lack of justifying facts. Judith Miller was (and presumably still is, though we hear little from her of late) determined, come what may, to sink the UN leadership over the so-called Oil for Food program with Iraq.

A new article in the Washington Post, however, shows a vastly superior way of handling the story. Justin Blum and Colum Lynch waited until a report came out, then focused on the players – high ranking Russian officials close to Putin, not the UN leadership, who appear to have personally profited from oil deals with Saddam. Down in the 12th paragraph, the Post writers include one boilerplate mention that the disclosures do not directly implicate Annan, but “are likely to contribute to the perception that he mismanaged” the program.

And that’s exactly right. It will contribute to perceptions. Which is not the same thing as saying that he did anything wrong. Perhaps he did. We shall see. Perhaps it will turn out that Annan knew that powerful people close to the leadership of many countries were getting rich off Iraq sanctions. If so, that will be a huge story.

But for now, what we have are connected people in numerous countries acting in self interest in their multilateral dealings. Hardly a surprise. And, after all, it’s not like Bush’s friends at Halliburton and elsewhere aren’t getting rich off of contracts while he is in office – contracts whose public benefits are dubious.

So far, the bigger story here, which I have yet to see reported, seems to be that the UN is able to function at all in advancing the interests of the earth’s population while having to hold together a fractious bunch of delegations acting primarily in the interests of their country's own elites.

---
NYT DOING ITS JOB

Yesterday’s Times had an important and gutsy piece by Neil Lewis, that was easy to miss (P. A18), and within it, a remarkable exchange that in particular deserves the spotlight. The article was about how Bush svengali Karl Rove personally guided the career decisions of Justice Priscilla Owen, one of the President’s highly controversial appeals court nominees.

In one section, Lewis reveals that even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a close Bush confidant who was a Texas Supreme Court Justice, found Owen’s behavior beyond the pale in terms of rabid ‘judicial activism.’ Here, Lewis describes a case in which Owen dissented to a decision allowing teenage girls to obtain abortions without notifying parents if they can show sufficient maturity and appreciation of the consequences of their decision. Owen wanted the teen in the case to demonstrate that she knew of religious objections to abortion and that she was aware that some women who had undergone the procedure later expressed remorse.

Mr. Gonzales, a Texas Supreme Court justice at the time, was in the majority and wrote that the position of the three dissenters was "an unconscionable act of judicial activism" because it would create obstacles to abortion that the Legislature did not enact.

Mr. Gonzales, in interviews with The New York Times, acknowledged that his words were directed at her dissent but said that he remained enthusiastic about her nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

But he has been repeatedly pressed by conservatives to declare that he did not mean her. Recently, he tried to distance himself from the remarks by telling a Senate committee that he was referring to himself, not the dissenters. His apparent explanation seemed to be that it would have been an act of judicial activism for him if he had done what Justice Owen and her two fellow dissenters had done.

That’s so stunning, Lewis seems unable to believe it himself. But that’s the story, folks. Even the Attorney General is so scared of Karl Rove that he will pretzel-ize himself to conform to the plan.

IMAM BIN-LIMBAUGH

In re the Newsweek report about US interrogators at Guantanamo allegedly flushing pages of the Koran down the toilet, a report that is blamed for inciting riots and causing bloodshed, that has now been retracted….My good and wise friend Jon Larsen points out to me that, whether the story is true or not, it has generated surprisingly extreme reaction, in comparison, say, to the more important and encompassing matter of actual mistreatment and degradation of prisoners.

In the way in which this story spread and caused such instant uproar, it is reminiscent of the Schiavo case and other bell-ringers. Jon says it reminds him of the way in which US-based religious extremists operate, and he wonders about who is learning from whom. Feels like someone is distributing the equivalent of talking points memos and then using the mosques and the Internet as megaphones, in the same way our guys use the Internet and talk radio. Rush Limbaugh, meet Imam bin-Limbaugh.

##
- posted by Russ @ 7:54 AM

MEDIA REFORM MADE COOL; SYRIA’S TROUBLE; RUMMY ON THE RUN

Who’d a thunk you could throw a media reform congress, fill it with 2,500 people from around the country, and still have to turn away droves?

A few short years ago, Robert McChesney, a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, probably seemed at best a well-intentioned academic with an obscure mission, and perhaps even a crank. He was obsessed with dry, obscure topics like the history of corporate ownership of the media. Who, in this busy life, has time for stuff like that?

Today, plenty do. And they’ve taken history and theory and turned it into activist practice to begin taking back the media from the corporations and the oligopoly.

This past weekend in St Louis, McChesney and his co-founder of the group FreePress, John Nichols, looked like conquering heroes. They’d brought together this vast assemblage of idealistic, do-something Americans to share their ideas and experiences.

The topics ranged from protecting free access to the Internet to getting disparate voices to the American people. Besides wall-to-wall panels and roundtables, some fabulous headliners roused the crowd, including the two Federal Communications commissioners bravely battling to keep the FCC from becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel – Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein (who also demonstrated he can play a mean harmonica.) I had dinner at a music-and-jambalaya joint with a small group including Copps, whose sincerity and passion embody public service at its best. These guys deserve constant reinforcement that we appreciate what they do.

Rock legend Patti Smith performed, and looks and sounds great at 58 ( a welcome counterpoint to, say, Paul McCartney, whom many wish would take up a new pursuit).

The zenith was Bill Moyers’ closing session barnburner, in which he threatened that, if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and conservative activists don’t stop trying to dilute the credible journalism done by NPR and PBS, he just might “get out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair.” You can watch his speech at http://www.freepress.net/conference/audio05/moyers.mp3 . For more info on FreePress, check out http://www.freepress.net/ .

SYRIA’S TROUBLE

I’m certainly no expert on Syria, never even been to the place. But I get a little nervous with all this talk by Condi Rice and friends about how Syria is a key part of the pipeline to the Iraqi insurgents.

They’ve tried to demonize Syria for quite some time, but the rhetoric is picking up, and that could mean a prelude to some kind of military action, or, more likely, an attempt to blame the Iraq insurgency on identifiable foreign actors.

Frankly, it’s pretty ridiculous to think that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has nothing better to do than to take on the United States. He got his comeuppance over Lebanon and had to withdraw his troops from there, he’s facing growing domestic opposition, and, not incidentally, Syria is, step by step, opening up. Recent articles have described growing tolerance of criticism from television shows and other cultural elements.

Surely, the insurgency has materiel moving through all neighboring countries. And surely there’s sympathy for it in Syria. But given the administration’s history of falsely tying other governments to terrorist activity, it makes sense to remain highly skeptical. For al-Assad to openly flout the US on this would be suicidal. And that’s enough reason to wonder whether what Condi’s saying can really be true.

RUMMY ON THE RUN

Good coverage by the Wall Street Journal of Rumsfeld’s efforts to remake the military. Principally, he wants a lean, small, hi-tech force that can use the elements of surprise, speed, and technology to overwhelm opponents. On the other side are high-ranking military chiefs, many of whom have served in Iraq, who believe that you cannot have those types of operations without committing vast human resources, including investing in cultural outreach, language skills, etc.

Rumsfeld is surely right conceptually, that fast and hard is the way to go with warfare, but he’s got blinders on about the reality. If you don’t personally interact with the people who see you as an invader (which you are, by the way) you will never be able to achieve stability. We’re reminded that Rumsfeld et al didn’t seem to think the invasion through or to worry at all about what to do once it was over – a notion that boggles the mind – from a secret British document recently leaked to the Sunday Times. But then this is not really that surprising. Why would people who want to virtually eliminate public social, educational and community services in their own country want to mount the equivalent in Iraq? Why would they want to see GIs actually helping people in Iraq, and building the metaphorical bridges that can empower the people there and create trust? Before you know it, you’ll have Iraqis espousing crazy ideas of the sort the Rumsfeld crowd would like to eliminate back home, put forth by dangerous radicals. You know, like that increasingly-reviled figure, FDR.

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:46 AM

MEET AMB. FRANKENSTEIN; IRAQ TALLIES; ENLISTMENTS; RAYMOND

UN ambassador-nominee John Bolton’s continued march toward his throne reminds one of a Frankenstein’s monster. The thing just can’t be stopped.
Exhibit A: Republican Senator George Voinovich. He labeled Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." And: "What message are we sending to the world [by appointing] an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally and of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves?"
Then, because of his outrage, he not-voted. That is, instead of voting “no” on this abhorrent creature, he did not vote. So Bolton’s nomination passed to the floor of the Senate.

One remembers a time when some Republicans would on occasion actually stand up to their leadership – among them Senators Mark Hatfield of Oregon, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, Charles Percy of Illinois, Jacob Javits of New York, John Chafee of Rhode Island (father of the less-brave Lincoln Chafee.) Those days appear long gone.

Meanwhile, the fact that some Democrats seem able to do what they want without serious repercussions (at least one senator, Ben Nelson, appears to be moving toward a “yes” vote), while Republicans apparently are terrified of the consequences of independent action, is in itself a fascinating dichotomy worth further discussion.

IRAQ TALLIES

I’d intended to remind readers every day of the carnage in Iraq (which seems to have become too routine for much of the media to report with any vigor) but it’s just too overwhelming and depressing. So I skipped a few days, every one of which was a bloodbath.
Anyway, here’s yesterday’s tote board, horrifically typical: 20 Iraqis killed in insurgent attacks, almost all in a car bombing by a market in Baghdad. This isn’t even a recruiting station, just ordinary people going about their lives. Two Marines killed and 14 wounded by a roadside bomb, and three other GIs dead in separate attacks. An Iraqi general and two other security officials were assassinated. (Every day now, it seems, some very high level Iraqi official goes down. Can there be an endless supply of qualified individuals for these posts?)
What does the White House have to say about this, or the Pentagon? Not much. No exit strategy, no idea for stanching the bleeding.
BEGGING FOR ENLISTMENTS

In my room at the Media Reform conference in St. Louis, I get a chance to carefully peruse USA Today, which often has good exclusive material, especially about the military, with terrific sourcing. (I was especially impressed by their reporting on problems with the anthrax vaccine, which seems to have some possible role in deaths among military personnel)

Today is no exception. The lead story is about how the Army, desperate over a shortage of recruits, is shortening its active-duty enlistment periods to just 15 months, down from a previous shortie of two years.

No wonder. Even the usual fodder for the military, impoverished kids and innocents from small towns hoping to get an education, a career, and a tour of the world, know an exploding turkey when they see one. The Iraq war has not only alienated much of the world and resulted in so much unnecessary death and destruction, but it has undermined the US citizenry’s basic confidence in the mission of the military – and that is a real crisis for this country. When a truly unavoidable war comes along, those who were reckless with deployment of force will have to be held accountable.

Meanwhile, ever-shorter enlistment requirements may draw additional recruits, but how wise is it? How well-seasoned will the average soldier be? We’ve already seen indications that many of those sent to Iraq were both poorly protected (deficient armor, etc) and poorly prepared. In all probability, this new policy is putting these young people -- and their more experienced comrades -- at heightened risk.

EVERYBODY LOVES PETER BOYLE

After nine years, the comedy Everybody Loves Raymond is coming to an end. At a screening of the British film Layer Cake, I ran into Peter Boyle, Raymond’s grumpy father and a singular presence in Hollywood forever. I made some wisecrack, and to his credit, Boyle, without missing a beat, though looking even older and grumpier than he does on the small screen, came back one better. Attaboy. Life really does imitate fiction.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:39 AM

ARGENTINA AND US; UNRETIRING TYPES

Recently, on a trip to Argentina, I visited with two journalists, authors of books about the country’s past ties to Nazis. Both of these individuals had unearthed important new evidence of extensive cooperation between the regime of reformer/authoritarian strongman Juan Peron and the government of Nazi Germany, and of its help in absorbing fleeing Nazi officials. Peron is still widely considered a hero in Argentina.

One of these journalists, Uki Goni, author of “The Real Odessa,” recounted to me and in his book the difficulties he has had getting his countrymen, even better-informed ones, to care about horrors perpetrated by their leaders. Too few care about the Nazi legacy, and (as I gleaned throughout the country) anti-semitism is still commonly and openly expressed In the 1970s, few seemed to care when Goni told them what he was learning about Nazi-style death camps put into place by the Argentine military government that seized power in 1976 and ruled until 1983. He writes in his foreword, “Even friends, members of my generation who picked up guitars and sang ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ at the parties I went to, gave me the empty stare.”

I certainly enjoyed my visit and the hospitality of the Argentine people. It’s a pulsating country, with a great deal going for it. But the blinders are still on, and it’s hard to see whether lessons have been learned.

Ironically, many people I met there were disturbed by the doings of the Bush Administration, and wanted to know whether I approved of them. They seemed more savvy about the problems of another country than of their own. Somehow, this reminds me of Americans. Our primary motivation/justification for the ongoing war in Iraq and for much of our foreign policy is the introduction of vibrant democracy abroad. Yet how many Americans have any idea about the state of democracy in their own country? The corrupt nature of the political leadership, the assault on the judiciary, the questions about the credibility of our election system, the suppression of freedoms in this country – there’s plenty to look at right here at home. Neither Argentinians nor Americans have a monopoly on righteousness.

UNRETIRING TYPES

I’m all for older workers keeping their jobs as long as they want to do them, and as long as they can do them. Older workers offer plenty of skills to employers that younger ones don’t. Besides, keeping active is an ideal prescription for a satisfying, full, healthy life.

But recent reports about the muscular doings of ancient businessmen has me thinking. The investor and billionaire casino owner Kirk Kerkorian, at 87 years old, is engaged in an aggressive play for a big piece of General Motors. Insurance tycoon Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, 80, is in big trouble with regulators over goings-on at his American International Group. So, to a lesser extent, is investor Warren Buffett, 74. Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch (holdings include Fox TV) is still the pirate, with brazen forays and gambits part of his essential diet. And there are more.

Here’s what I’m thinking: It’s great that these fellows keep busy, and it’s great that they thrive on the adrenaline rush of being big business machers. But honestly, isn’t there a point at which we all grow up? There’s a whole world of problems out there that would undoubtedly benefit from the acumen and financial resources of these elders. Can’t they channel their egos into something constructive while they still have a chance? Solving global problems of health and infrastructure needn’t be dull. They might find that they actually like spending most of their time helping others. Who knows? It’s never too late to change.

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:00 AM

WARNING ON ORANGE ALERTS; DEMOCRACY BLAHS; ART OF SELLING OUT

Here’s a red alert. Sometime last year, I publicly complained about all the heightened color-coded alerts emanating from the Bush Administration and dutifully reported by major media. What evidence was there, I wanted to know? I was also disturbed by the suspicious timing of announcements, with many of them coming at times of maximum value to the administration, particularly during the election campaign and when the administration was under particular scrutiny.

Now, according to a report in USA Today, we learn from former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge that even he didn’t buy most of the alerts. At a Washington forum, he revealed that he had often argued against the alerts, because they were based on flimsy evidence. He was apparently overruled by the administration.

This sounds like more info management of the sort allegedly conducted by UN ambassador-nominee John Bolton, who got angry at intelligence analysts who couldn’t deliver the smoking gun against targeted ‘enemy’ nations. . In fact, there’s growing evidence that this administration wages such fear campaigns, and exaggerates intelligence routinely, almost as a policy.

Will this important USA Today story get legs? Will it cause outrage? Will the rest of the media now demand accountability at the top from the White House for deliberately and unnecessarily terrorizing the American people?

DEMOCRACY BLAHS

The Bush Administration’s much-hyped ambition to foster democracy abroad, the last and best attempt at justifying the Iraq invasion, is proving to be less than meets the ear. News organizations are starting to examine the so-called democracy efforts in countries like Egypt and finding them wanting. In that country, for example, there will finally be some kind of elections, and anyone can be a candidate – as long as the government likes you. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports that even in Bahrain, one of the “model” mideastern countries in terms of openness and freedom, has growing problems. The government is beginning to crack down against an opposition that is markedly Islamist. And that brings up the horse-and-cart issue. How do you replace feudal and dictatorial systems with democracy when that institution has little appeal? The US has done appallingly little with regard to helping construct the underpinnings of democracy – fostering education, instilling values by training and by example, and figuring out how to fight the rampant high-level corruption in those countries that keeps the masses impoverished and increases the allure of religiouis extremism.

ART OF SELLING OUT

Excellent Critic’s Notebook in today’s New York Times by Michael Kimmelman, bemoaning the rush by major art museums to make money by selling out to corporate sponsors. As I said yesterday, the selling of public spaces is a growing outrage, part of the unimpeded march toward a corporate state. We need to talk more about this problem – and find a constructive way to fight back.

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:51 AM

ENDLESSLY PILLORYING CLINTONS? NEW IRRITANTS

Today begins the federal trial of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s former fundraising director, on charges he illegally underreported the cost of a 2000 senate race fundraising event. At first glance, it seems a complicated matter, with some question as to the motives of the main accuser and of the federal government in prosecuting the case.

Let’s be clear: it’s important for the integrity of the system that campaigns report income accurately. But, some perspective, please. It is disturbingly common for campaigns to mis- and under-report income. Few miscreants seem to land in a federal courthouse.

What distinguishes this case, apart from the Clinton connection, may be the amount at issue, principally about $1.1 million, again mitigated by the fact that it came in the somewhat more nuanced form of in-kind (non-monetary) goods and services that went toward the event.

The mere fact that anything about Hillary or Bill Clinton seems to instantly gain mega-scandal status ought to give us pause before we race to assume the worst. I’ll be watching this closely, and if the Clinton people willfully did something wrong here, will be the first to condemn them. Certainly, they’re not always sticklers on ethics matters. But we must keep in mind how high a priority it is for certain folks to hold the Clintons to a higher standard than they would their own favorites. And to look for ways to ensure that the name Clinton remains a political lightning rod.

----

NEW IRRITANTS

I’d love to start a column, kind of Andy Rooney-ish, that grouses about annoying developments that generally fly low on our radar but make life just a bit more miserable. Here are a few recent ones:

-Cell phones for children, so they can keep mom and dad constantly apprised of their whereabouts. This is obviously for safety and pratical concerns, but we can also expect a rise in conversations that include perhaps a play-by-play on play dates, and perhaps exhibits of certain parents’ neurotic control mechanisms. Somehow, we all survived until recently without cell phones invading every aspect of our lives – and, more importantly, forcing others to suffer through, involuntarily, hearing every boring logistical detail of our existence.

-Back-seat commercials in cabs. As we can see by the steady march of such intrusions, the allure of the ad buck knows no limit. There are ads on the wall in the toilet stall, ads on cheerleaders, ads on… well, just about everything. New York City is now considering putting in passenger information screens that may include scrolling ads. I bet that researchers will one day find a connection between the number of ads that bombard us and hypertension, depression, and, maybe, other forms of illness. We crave – we need, a cocoon of silence and mental tranquility every now and then in order to keep balance, thoughtfulness, calm and humanity in our lives.

-Bigger louder, air horns for autos. The Wall Street journal quoted a Hummer owner who is among the many feeling insignificant despite the monster of a vehicle with which they play lord of the highways. He is one of legions who apparently have gone ahead and installed a powerful air horn. The man asserts that he now gets the attention and respect he deserves, even claims that when he toots, sometimes people applaud. I don’t know about you, but I don’t applaud this intrusion. Maybe we can all pitch in and get these people some therapy sessions.

These developments do sound kind of funny, but they really aren’t. Groups like Commercial Alert, run by the talented and energetic Gary Ruskin, and OnTheCommons.org , headed up by the creative thinker Jonathan Rowe, are trying to address the constant incursion of soulless commercialism and mindless ego-gratification on the shared spaces of public life.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:48 AM

TAKING US FOR A RIDE; TOXIC SECURITY; ASSEMBLY LINE DEATH

Given the White House’s obsession with information management, isn’t the whole “Putin spat” a bit questionable? When on his trip commemorating the end of WWII, Bush slammed the Soviet Union’s role in dominating Eastern Europe, he got a lot of mileage out of stories that he had angered Vladimir Putin. In today’s papers, we see Bush gleefully tooling around with Putin in the Russian’s vintage car, as if they’re the best buddies in the world. And, basically, they are. But the media’s focus on the “spat” rather than on the likelihood that it was pre-understood by the two as necessary public relations was a disservice to the public. Bush’s Russia-bashing is calculated to play to his conservative base, just as Putin’s hardline comments play to his own ex-communist backers. But Putin’s regime has been significantly undermining democracy in Russia, and it would be nice if more focus was on what the Bush Administration is actually doing about that.

---

TOXIC SECURITY

Today’s NY Times has a scary article about chemical plants (including one making chlorine gas) stretched across a portion of New Jersey, where almost no visible security measures seem in place to prevent a terrorist attack. An area in which 12 million people live could be devastated. A reporter and photographer were able to drive up and back, very close in front of the plant, presumably in perfect range to launch some kind of fusillade.

As noted by Eric Umansky in Slate’s Today’s Papers, it isn’t until the 35th paragraph that the article happens to mention – ahem -- that efforts to protect these plants were blocked, partly by industry lobbyists, and partly by congressional conservatives who are more worried about granting any kind of additional authority to the feds than by the possibility of mass carnage.

That this does not immediately rise to the level of debate generated by stories like the Terri Schiavo case must be blamed in part on journalism. It’s up to members of the media to decide what truly matters, and to play it front and center until everyone is talking.

-------------------
ASSEMBLY LINE DEATH

The rebels in Iraq apparently have now actually got a growing stockpile of bomb-rigged cars and a steady pipeline of foreign fighters clamoring to blow themselves up. It’s a horrendous, worst-case scenario, and one that should have become obvious earlier. We’ve had appallingly little information on how the other side in that country keeps on keeping on. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the insurgents are not just recruiting abroad. In some cases, they’re blackmailing Iraqis to blow themselves up by kidnapping members of their families. The bomb-rigged cars may be a way of helping them go through with it if they have second thoughts.

How this grotesque and rapidly worsening situation is not the principal topic of conversation in Washington – and everywhere – is beyond me. Back in the Vietnam War days, each significant development became instant news. Now, these things trickle out, barely registering. It’s a new low in declining public engagement with the key events of our time and our world.

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:08 AM

More PBS Attacks; Iraq Counting; Clinton DoGooder

MORE ATTACKS ON PBS

Taking its cue from the White House, The Wall Street Journal op-ed page today picks up the cudgel in going after public broadcasting (see my May 4 blog) with a piece from a writer at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. If you didn’t know better (and most readers have no reason to) you’d think from its name that such a center was somewhat interested in popular culture. Actually, it hates popular culture, and is run by the controversial arch-conservative former lefty David Horowitz. That helps provide some context on what is being said. In any case, this fellow, Jacob Laksin, goes after the National Public Radio program ‘On the Media,’ saying that the show itself, instead of examining media bias, exhibits it.

Once again, this is a distortion. Because the show goes after bad and sloppy journalism, and is tougher on, say, Fox News than CNN, this is, in Horowitzland, prima facie evidence of bias. In fact, fans of truth have got to stand up to these false analyses. Journalism is emphatically not about treating every entity, organization and pronouncement as essentially of equal value and accuracy. We’re supposed to be holding things up to the light, and then declaring what we can about the inherent value of the material. There are lots of ways to test for quality, and if On the Media finds the president’s statements to be substantially disingenuous, or Fox’s reports to lack factual accuracy then – well, then, the show is not being biased. On the contrary, it is doing its job.

David Horowitz is far from the appropriate arbiter of such things – in fact, I’d like to see more stories about who funds the work of the Horowitzs and the Laksins of the world. Could it be the very same corporate entities who so loathe the light of bracing investigative journalism and who flourish in the fog?

IRAQ COUNTING

Today’s New York Times has an article describing what it feels like to be an Iraqi and live in constant fear -- of being bombed, kidnapped, shot. I was glad to see the report – too often it takes the mainstream press way too long to start personalizing the stories behind the numbing statistics. Speaking of which, here’s today’s ghoul summary via Slate, adding Afghanistan to the mix:Yesterday's toll in Iraq: about two dozen civilians and police killed in four different attacks, including another suicide bomber who got into a police recruitment line. As the NYT details, nine Afghan soldiers were killed in fighting near the border with Pakistan, the single deadliest attack so far against the country's new army. There had been a lull in fighting since the October presidential elections, but recently the Taliban seem to have launched a visibility campaign.

WHAT DO CLINTON’S CRITICS THINK NOW?

I’d be curious to hear what all those people who went after Bill Clinton think about his post-presidential works. He’s busy with a host of initiatives related to AIDS, juvenile morbidity, global poverty, and more. Now, he is launching the “Clinton Global Initiative,” described in a Journal article as “an ambitious effort to harness the resources of global corporations and nongovernmental organizations, as well as governments, to attack some of the world’s most intractable problems.”

Jimmy Carter, you probably know, has devoted his post-presidential life to good works, from mediation to election protection to housing the poor.

What have some of the other former presidents done? What good works did George HW Bush unleash? I remember him getting something like a million dollars for a speech to a Moonie-connected outfit, and being on the board of a munitions firm. What did Ronald Reagan or Gerald Ford do?

You shouldn’t have to be a Democrat to see that as a former US president, you’re in a unique position to profoundly improve life everywhere.
- posted by Russ @ 9:07 AM

#3 AL QAEDA LEADER NABBED – AND IT DOESN’T MATTER!

Yesterday, President Bush hailed the arrest in Pakistan of a Libyan named Abu Farah al-Libbi as a major advance in the war on terrorism. Authorities described the man as the #3 figure in the Al Qaeda leadership.

When I first heard the news on the radio, I thought, hmm, isn’t that something like the THIRD “#3 Al Qaeda leader” they’ve snagged? And what does that really mean, anyway? How important is this guy? And are they simplifying things for impact with an audience that doesn’t welcome nuance?

Seems so. As reported in today’s Washington Post,

"If he's a big fish, it's because it's a much smaller pond," Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp., a nonprofit research organization, said from Washington. "He has advanced through the ranks because of attrition in al Qaeda. It shows how this movement has a knack for replacing serious operatives -- a deep bench."

And the New York Times notes that there appears to be another AQ fellow with a nearly identical name. So maybe this isn’t even the right guy.

I know how this can happen. Yesterday, coming into JFK airport, I was pulled aside at Immigration and led to a holding room. After about ten minutes, I was released. Since this was the second time in a year that’s happened, I asked for an explanation. Last time, the G-Guy refused to say, but this time, a more reasonable-minded officer told me that I had a similar name to another fellow. I pointed out that we probably don’t have the same passport number, and he agreed. Anyway, if they can’t figure out that I’m not a terrorist, they certainly can get two Pakistani Al Qaeda guys mixed up. (Perhaps they had me mixed up with Russell Baker, the retired columnist and Masterpiece Theater host? He’s one dangerous guy, too, as I can attest – read more here.)

Of course, once Bush says he’s a big fish, that’s the last many people in this country will ever hear of the matter – all they’ll remember is how well the campaign is going.

Having said all that, and even assuming he was #3, it hardly makes a difference anymore.
Thanks to the war in Iraq, potentially consequential efforts to restore tranquility and security no longer matter. Who can say how important or threatening Al Qaeda even is at the moment? These spring days, garden variety terrorists sprout everywhere.

Indeed, the horror is so pervasive, it’s so easy to become blasé about it all. This is from Slate’s summary of Today’s Papers: The New York Times leads with yesterday's bombing at a police recruiting post in the Kurdish town Irbil that killed about 60 people and wounded 150.The bomber was on foot and apparently posed as job applicant. A suicide car bomber also hit a checkpoint in Baghdad, killing nine Iraq soldiers and wounding 15. This morning, another 20 Iraqi police and soldiers were killed in two attacks. Two GIs were reported killed in separate car bombings…… Knight Ridder says Shiite students at Baghdad University have been rioting the past few days after one of their leaders was murdered. Classes have been canceled and the dean has "fled."

Most of that is a one-day news haul. Not that long ago, that much carnage would have been a big deal if it constituted a week’s worth, and at one point, it would have rattled us if that was the toll for an entire month.

---

Anyone troubled after reading my recent Nation article about Judith Miller’s bias and excessive zeal in her constant coverage of alleged wrongdoing at the United Nations, seemingly part of a conscious effort to tarnish UN leadership, ought to consider a smallish article in today’s New York Times, by Erik Eckholm, whom you might call a traditional reporter, unlike the unusually WallStreetJournalOpEd-pagish Ms Miller. While Miller’s still-unresolved shocking cases seem to have involved hundreds of thousands or in some cases perhaps a million dollars, Eckholm’s report involves $89.4 million, of which at least $7 million may have been outright stolen.

Headlined, “U.S. Mishandled $96.6 Million in Rebuilding Iraq, Report Finds”, the article was buried inside the paper, and easily missed. On the Times website, it was not one of the top international stories. Here’s the beginning….

>>American officials rushing to start small building projects in a large swath of Iraq in 2003 and 2004 did not keep required records on the spending of $89.4 million in cash and cannot account at all for another $7.2 million, a federal watchdog reported yesterday. Most of the poorly documented spending appeared to involve incompetence or haste, but in some cases the auditors said they suspected theft. "We found indications of fraud," said the report by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. Some cases were referred to a criminal investigations unit of the inspector general's office. <<

How about a little perspective here? Is there more wrongdoing or sloppiness at the UN, or at the US? Readers have a right to know. And if the UN leadership should be held accountable, how about the US leadership?
- posted by Russ @ 8:30 AM

THE END OF PBS?

You may be following the situation at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The New York Times published an article Monday and an editorial today on efforts by Kenneth Tomlinson, the Bush-named chairman, to force PBS to add more Republicans and conservatives, both as managers and on-air talent.

The Times, quite rightly, is disturbed by this. As the editorial puts it,

Although he has insisted that he does not want to politicize PBS or cut any programs, Mr. Tomlinson has managed to spread the word throughout the PBS community that he does not like anything that he considers too anti-corporate, anti-White House or anti-Republican. For journalists whose basic code is to "speak truth to power," this is not good news: those are the main powers in the country.

Their real fear, an understandable one at this stage, is that Mr. Tomlinson and his supporters have a larger agenda - to "hollow out" public broadcasting and fill it with programming that suits their political agenda. And if public broadcasting becomes too political to suit all but the most loyal Republicans or too boring in the name of balance, that could mean the slow death of such broadcasting, which could have been the goal all along.

What the Times can’t say, though it knows it to be the case, is that a lot of the so-called “conservative viewpoint” as put forward in the media is simply based on demonstrable falsehoods. I’ve been on numerous talk shows with so-called conservatives. While I certainly feel there’s a legitimate conservative perspective on many issues (and occasionally share it), I’ve repeatedly found the representatives of that viewpoint simply – well, how to put it? – lying. These folks constantly make up material, cite incorrect statistics, exaggerate or falsify anecdotes, repeat material that has long been discredited. Even on the straight “news” shows, especially on Fox, the inaccuracy meter swings frequently to the top of the chart.

The thing about shows like Bill Moyer’s former redoubt, “Now With Bill Moyers”, which was disliked by Tomlinson, is that it was filled with passion and righteous indignation regarding topics of real interest to Americans – freedom, integrity, values. Moyers didn’t get his facts wrong. What the Right hated about Moyers was simply that he would raise such concerns at all. But the bottom line in journalism is that any fair-minded person, without an agenda or explicit political viewpoint, usually comes down on the side of the powerless, the ordinary, the ignored. That’s what Gandhi did, that’s what Jesus did. It’s pretty hard to marshal statistics in favor of environmental despoliation or rampant greed. But leave it to the Bush folks. They will certainly try their darnedest.

##

- posted by Russ @ 10:50 AM

MADAM PLEASE! // IRAQ WORSE AND WORSE

Not long ago, I read a small article about the owners and employees of a busted Manhattan escort service. For participating in this illegal venture, three of them each face up to 30 years in prison and an $11 million fine.

I´m struck by the fact that the article got so little attention, and that the incredibly harsh penalties were stuck into the last paragraph. I´d love to see a comparison of what sort of punishment is accorded executives who commit financial crimes on a far larger scale. I realize that bankrupting thousands of shareholders and misleading millions is nowhere as troubling as providing ¨nightlife companions¨to willing customers, but still......

Oh, and then there´s Pvt. Lynndie England, whose antics demeaning prisoners in Iraq inflamed the Islamic world, undoubtedly serving as a valuable recruiting poster for suicide bombers. She just pleaded guilty and is expected to serve a couple of years. (Of note, the Washington Post reported that at the last minute, England said she didn´t know what she had done wrong and only posed for the famed leash photo because she had been ordered to. Her lawyer told her to shut up, and she retracted her remarks. Wonder who she is covering for, and whether that person might well be deserving of a 30 year sentence?)


*****

Read yesterday´s blog, then consider this: as grim as the picture I painted 24 hours ago, the violence in Iraq continues to surge.

Here´s a sumary from today´s papers, via Slate: Two dozen Iraqis were killed by insurgents. There were three suicide car bombs in Baghdad alone. About 140 Iraqis have been killed since the government was picked last week. Two Navy F-18 fighters appear to have collided over southern Iraq, with no evidence of hostile fire or of survivors. A GI was killed near the Baghdad airport, and a British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. 12 Iraqis were killed and two wounded, including a 6-year-old girl, in fighting near the Syrian border. Six GIs were also wounded. Iraqi security forces are now beating up Iraqi reporters. The LA Times reports that the Pentagon's top general, Richard Myers, says the fighting in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan put huge strains on the military and make it difficult to fight a second-front war in another region. "We would have to win uglier," said an unnamed military official.

As Slate notes, that´s contrary to Bush´s claim last week that ¨It feels like we got plenty of capacity.¨

Somehow, when he says things like that, I don´t feel too confident. Sort of like when you´re getting repair advice from some gas station attendant hundreds of miles from anywhere. You just wonder how much the guy really knows, and, for that matter, how much he really cares.

##
- posted by Russ @ 7:37 AM

NEW WAYS TO KILL – AND MAKE A KILLING

Recently, I appeared as a guest on a television show, and the “conservatives” on the panel brayed about how well things were going in Iraq. They made much of the promise of the democratic elections, and were encouraged that peace was at hand. Besides, there had been a lull in bombings.

What a difference a few days can make. Today’s papers are filled with a range of Iraqi mayhem that can only remind us how outrageous the entire enterprise was and is. Let’s look at the particulars: 100 Iraqis and 11 US troops killed in at least 20 bombings over several days (that’s a lot of individuals recruited, prepped, and dispatched to kill themselves), A suicide bomber drove into a tent full of mourners for a Kurdish politician (many previous examples of this – people getting killed for mourning people getting killed.) As New York Times reports, several children were killed in an incident where US troops were handing out candy and insurgents struck. (Now, ordinary Iraqis have to warn the once-welcomed invading heroes to keep their distance.) According to the LA Times, one car bomber whose bomb malfunctioned told US troops that he’d agreed to blow himself up in order to save the lives of his family members, who had been kidnapped by insurgents (how’s that for hopelessly escalating an already hopeless situation? If that becomes the norm, we’re looking at a nation of reluctant kamikazes)

As long as we’re talking about it, let’s throw in this equally gruesome news: the acting minister for Oil is one Ahmed Chalabi – the very same guy who is unapologetic about supplying false WMD intelligence as justification for launching the invasion in the first case. Given that Chalabi’s staunchest allies and advocates within the US government wanted to invade Iraq for years, in good part to secure the vast Iraqi oil deposits, how poetic is this development?

If this isn’t a good moment for some courageous figure in the political firmament to step forward and begin a dialogue about this profound failure, I don’t know what might be.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:08 AM