BakerMuckraker
Blogs in the Month of
August - 2005
- August 12, DEAR
LOYAL READERS
- August 10, MORE
ON SECRETS AND SPIES
- August 08, ARMY
TROOPS IN US STREETS?
- August 05, SPIES;
PILLS; PSYCHOPATHS
- August 04, STAY/GO;OUTSOURCING
TERROR; TINKER; IGNORANCE; ON DECK
- August 03, PROFANITY;
ON SECOND THOUGHT; CENSORSHIP; DUMB BY DESIGN?
- August 02, STUNNING;
BOLTON THRU CROWD; BIPARTISAN BUMP; DUBIOUS ENDORSEMENT
- August 01, TERROR
SPRAWL; GUANTANAM-ERRORS; LANGLEY LOWDOWN
Friday, August 12, 2005
Dear Loyal Readers:
For Thursday and Friday, August 11 and 12, I have been guest blogging over at Arianna Huffington's site, Huffington Post. You can see my entries by clicking
I'll be on a blog hiatus for the next 10 days or so in order to give undivided attention to an important project. Look to this space soon, though, for more of Baker Muckracker's trademark "hot-off-the-noggin discoveries, notions and polite tantrums."
More on SECRETS and SPIES
If you’ve been following BakerMuckraker the past blog-week, you know that I’m all hopped-up about the signs of a rising tide of government-sponsored suppression and intimidation – all in the name of ‘national security.’ It's the generalized notion of protection taken many bridges too far.
One thing I mentioned was the indictment of former officials of AIPAC, the Israel lobbying group, for providing classified material to journalists and to Israel. Guess you’d call it spying.
Tuesday, on TomPaine.com, a publication to which I frequently contribute, my colleague Robert Dreyfuss wrote that the so-called “Franklin case” (Franklin was a US State Department official who supplied documents to the AIPAC fellows) also appears to involve people inside the Pentagon.
…the network tied to the "Franklin case"—which ought to be called the "AIPAC case," since it was AIPAC that was really under investigation by the FBI—provides an important window into a shadowy world. It is clear that by probing the details of the case, the FBI has got hold of a dangerous loose end of [a] much larger story. By pulling on that string hard enough, the FBI and the Justice Department might just unravel that larger story, which is beginning to look more and more like it involves the same nexus of Pentagon civilians, White House functionaries, and American Enterprise Institute officials who thumped the drums for war in Iraq in 2001-2003 and who are now trying to whip up an anti-Iranian frenzy as well.
Dreyfuss is understandably excited to see the outlines of nefarious neocon plotting here – and may well be right. But I think that, nonetheless, there’s (as one might say) a larger issue at issue. And that is this: the clampdown on all manner of ‘threat’ has grown so out of control that even the insiders are getting caught in the web.
I don’t want to start defending AIPAC and its ‘Israel, right or wrong’ policy and famous muscularity on Capitol Hill, rivaling that of the National Rifle Association. But I do think it’s important to acknowledge that claims about spying for foreign powers and releasing internal documents need be considered against the reality. Which is this: US governments have been incredibly close to Israel for many years, share tremendous amounts of information, and both have friends, staffers, quasi-spies and spies trying to get them whatever isn’t officially shared. You and I might strongly disagree with Israeli policies or tactics, but the 'special relationship' between the countries is an established fact.
I also think that it’s important not to jump to conclusions about what amounts to a bunch of (Jewish) neocons in and out of government who may have helped Israel get info – it’s too easy to feed the imaginations of conspiracy theorists who see an American Jew behind everything misguided in US policy, official and otherwise.
I don’t condone giving material to Israel or to any foreign government, but I’m not sure the act in itself is likely to actually compromise the security of the United States or its citizens. The truth is, we’d all be a lot better off if almost everything was transparent. What if people in the administration had leaked to European powers evidence that the White House was fabricating excuses to go to war with Iraq? Does that make them Benedict Arnolds, or Ethan Allens? Certainly, when the leaks appear on the front page of a respected paper, they are important revelations.
Continuing with the spy frenzy, today's Wall Street Journal has a frontpager about a huge FBI operation aimed at Chinese spies, mostly over concerns about the theft of (largely civilian) technology ideas. With the enthusiasm for globalizing trade, and with the vanishing borders of the transnational corporate world, I'd also wonder how wise this concern really is. Perhaps the concern ought to be more directed toward proliferation of weapons, including but not only in China. This administration is more closely tied to the 'defense' contracting than even prior ones, and in that industry, it seems as much about selling weapons to whomever will buy them as it does about 'defense' of the United States.
On to the larger picture. As I previously pointed out, the Bush administration is stamping “Secret” onto everything it can get its hands on. And this in a country that still considers even the total budget figure for combined intelligence spending to be a crucial national secret. We can’t leave it to the Bush administration to decide what it does and does not want made public.
Meantime, here’s a new development: On the front page of yesterday’s New York Times we have a REPUBLICAN US Congressman and an unnamed “former intelligence official” revealing the purported existence of “a small, highly classified military intelligence unit” that, according to the men, used an unknown but clearly advanced data mining system to “identify Mohhammed Atta and three other future hijackers” as likely Al Qaeda cell members in the United States.
Of course, one wonders whether under nondisclosure rules, this story should have emerged. Personally, I’m all for it. But then I’m for disclosure of almost everything – excepting where legitimate and justifiable future operations might be compromised, where current covert operatives might be endangered, etc. The rest of it needs scrutiny. And the burden ought to be on those who want to suppress information, or prosecute/persecute fellow Americans, to prove substantial harm to some kind of national security interest that, say, members of a jury would understand.
It’s not enough that the laws on secrets make release of them a crime. It’s time for the government to prove its case -- in plain view.
Monday, August 8, 2005
ARMY TROOPS IN US STREETS?
In Friday’s blog, I expressed some concern about the government’s prosecution of several private individuals for having passed along classified information obtained from a government employee. (See below). I’m particularly worried about whether this is part of a general clampdown on dissent, because there appears to be a growing pattern of such things. As to the merits of that case, I’ll just note that there’s often little basis for the claim that classified material is vital to real ‘national security,’ or that public airing of the information is inimical to the national interest, whatever that might be.
On Sunday, came yet another troubling sign. In the New York Times, we read of the case of a New York-area translator and US citizen facing 20 years in prison for providing material aid to terrorism and conspiring to deceive the government. Although the reporter says that some outside of the prosecution seem to think this fellow clearly did something wrong, it is clear that she – and most of her sources – are alarmed by the harshness of the potential sentence given a less than clear case of wrongdoing. (Among other things, there is nothing about the man to suggest any personal support for terror or even an inkling of such.) Read it yourself and see what you think.
Meantime, today has yet another potential cause for alarm. The Washington Post reports on plans being developed by the Pentagon to have normal military troops intervene domestically in various crisis scenarios. There are lots of reasons to worry about this, the most basic of which is that such operations can -- at least in theory -- lead to military government. The article contains various reassurances that there’s no cause for alarm, but here are some quick thoughts on particulars worth scrutinizing:
-The Washington Post got this story from “officers who drafted the plans.” Now, I wonder why those officers told the reporter about this. I’m assuming they spoke to him with the permission of their superiors, which means that this is a planned leak. It means that the military is trying to float the idea to see what kind of reaction it gets. I.e., Will there be an outcry or not?
-Given the above-mentioned stories, in which various US citizens are accused of threatening ‘national security’, one wonders why releasing the Pentagon plan (complete with a surprising amount of detail) is somehow not a threat to security.
-Now, read the following excerpt:
The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement. Indeed, defense officials continue to stress that they intend for the troops to play largely a supporting role in homeland emergencies, bolstering police, firefighters and other civilian response groups.
But the new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.
"In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is best positioned -- of the various eight federal agencies that would be involved -- to take the lead," said Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head of Northcom, which coordinates military involvement in homeland security operations.
The plans present the Pentagon with a clearer idea of the kinds and numbers of troops and the training that may be required to build a more credible homeland defense force. They come at a time when senior Pentagon officials are engaged in an internal, year-long review of force levels and weapons systems, attempting to balance the heightened requirements of homeland defense against the heavy demands of overseas deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Now, here are a few thoughts and questions relating to that.
-Why, with all the massive budgeting and preparing for emergencies, do we need the military involved? What about the vast Department of Homeland Security, which swallowed up pre-existing entities like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA? What about the thousands upon thousands of trained responders? What about police and National Guard? Why should that not be enough?
-How much of this is designed to satisfy the gaping maw of the defense industry, for whom the state of never-ending war has been a tremendous boon, after a dry spell immediately after the USSR collapsed? (Read the annual reports from these companies, which don't even try to hide their delight at the new marketing opportunities since 9/11). The Post piece mentions that the military command for North America (Northcom) has grown so much in under three years that it now has 640 headquarters staff, more than the military has for operations in Latin America.
-Why is there so little talk about how this came about? The Bush Administration didn’t cause the 9/11 attacks, but had things been handled differently, that might have turned out to represent something of an aberration, an essentially manageable situation where reasonable risks are met with reasonable responses. Obviously, disasters like 9/11 need to be addressed, but the question was, how? Thanks to the Iraq war, we are now seeing that still-limited threat scenario evolve into a wholesale transformation of our world -- everywhere, and at home. And we’re still not, as a country, discussing that.
-There’s mention in the article of “crowd control” – and it doesn’t take a lot to imagine that, although it may be intended to control crowds panicked by an attack, troops might be used to control any kind of crowd deemed to be ‘out of control’ – including crowds of domestic dissenters. (We already got a whiff of that with excesses outside the GOP convention in 2004)
That there's an ideological component at work is indisputable. The article quotes a staffer at the very conservative Heritage Foundation speaking approvingly about the Pentagon’s “acknowledg(ing) that it would have to respond…” as a “big step.”
-The article says that Pentagon brass doesn’t want standing units, but to use a common pool of troops trained for homeland and overseas assignments. I see troubles there, too. When troops are operating abroad, they’re often in war zones, in highly volatile situations where civil liberties and other niceties play little or no role. Should those same soldiers suddenly be deployed to Washington or Madison, Wisconsin?
There’s talk of mixing it up with entities that do traditionally have responsibilities for domestic order, including having National Guard officers in charge of task forces that could include ordinary active-duty soldiers. Again, this makes me nervous – it looks a lot like getting around constitutional prohibitions on using active-duty troops. And then, there’s this doozy of a quote from Admiral Timothy Keating, head of Northcom:
"It could be a challenge for the commander who's a Guardsman, if we end up in a fairly complex, dynamic scenario," Keating said. He cited a potential situation in which Guard units might begin rounding up people while regular forces could not.
Folks, can we all just stop a moment from our orgy of denial and deliberate distraction, what with the explosion of ‘reality shows,’ fascination with cooking, home improvement and real estate speculation, to get a handle on what is going on here?
Friday, August 5, 2005
SPIES; PILLS; PSYCHOPATHS
WHAT MAKES A SPY?
We ought to pay careful attention to the case in which two former employees of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, have been indicted on charges of providing classified information to journalists and to a foreign government.
Because it raises basic questions on the appropriate role of American citizens in debate over government policies.
In the current case, the government is not only prosecuting one of its own for allegedly leaking the info, but also these two men for passing it on. The law doesn’t distinguish between government officials and others, but prosecutors rarely go after private citizens. Which makes this a legal proceeding to watch.
Deep into a New York Times article today is this quote from the United States Attorney prosecuting the case:
“When it comes to classified information, there is [a] clear line in the law," Mr. McNulty said. "Today's charges are about crossing that line. Those entrusted with safeguarding our nation's secrets must remain faithful to the trust. Those not authorized to receive classified information must resist the temptation to acquire it, no matter what their motivation may be."
Well, must we ‘resist the temptation’? Certainly, journalists don’t necessarily resist the temptation – our jobs revolve around informing the public of what government is doing, whether or not someone has put an “off-limits” stamp on it. Resisting temptation is equally tough for citizens of conscience. There’s a long list of such patriots, which surely includes Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.
McNulty’s assertion that, like Adam in the Garden, we must resist temptation, raises a related issue. This administration has broken previous records in its zeal to proclaim what is not permissible in the public sphere, classifying extraordinary volumes of documents. If the government was forced to show how, exactly, release of material would harm the national security, it would in many cases be hard-pressed.
In the current case, the two AIPAC officials, who are not government employees, had obtained information from people who are. In one meeting, one of the AIPAC officials seems to have gotten some information from a US official, and then to have talked to a reporter. The subject matter: “United States strategy options involving an unnamed Middle Eastern country and internal American deliberations about those options.”
Apparently, the case involves numerous discussions about numerous topics, and it’s hard at this point to know exactly what went on. But let’s go theoretical for a moment.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the country in the above-mentioned discussion was Iraq. And let’s suppose, again, entirely for illustrative purposes, that some State Department official, alarmed at what she was learning about cynical attempts to create false rationales for an invasion, decided that the public had a right to know. Now, does that threaten national security? Or does that threaten the political security of those advocating the invasion?
How is the term ‘national security’ even being construed? We use it so often, that it has become as meaningless as any hackneyed phrase. In an era when the government is crazily over-classifying things, too often as an instinctual act of self-protection instead out of real concern for the well-being of the American people, this raises questions about what could happen to journalists and activists who either publicize information or run it by foreigners for comment or perspective.
Unfortunately, this case is likely to rate ‘too technical’ to generate wide public discussion. But if it did take off – if the American people were able to look into the kitchen and see exactly how the American Pie is being made by their top chefs, in this time of exhortations to be patriots and to simply operate on faith, we might not like what we were seeing.
SUGAR-COATED PILL
So the pharmaceutical industry has decided that it will create and enforce its own behavioral guidelines. These have been developed in the face of widespread criticism over the industry’s aggressive efforts to get Americans to demand more -- and particular -- prescription drugs from their doctors.
There's been an explosion of marketing tactics that, to some, exhibit a certain reckless attitude toward public health. One tactic that has come under fire involves running 15-second drug ads that don’t have to include any risk information since they technically don’t mention any benefits. No, they simply imply them. (Consider the Viagra ad with a man with horns, that doesn’t have to mention side effects or complications.)
Now, the industry says it has a plan to regulate itself, voluntarily. But the proposed code of conduct sounds pretty tepid, and in some cases simply catalogues behavior that is already standard – like submitting ads to the FDA before running them.
According to the New York Times’ advertising column yesterday, GOP Senator Charles Grassley, a leading critic of drug industry practices, doesn’t think much of the do-it-yourself approach to regulation.
''It doesn't make sense to rely on drug companies to police themselves,'' Mr. Grassley said in a statement. ''The Food and Drug Administration needs to stop dragging its feet and start exercising its authority to closely monitor the marketing of pharmaceuticals.''
But of course it doesn’t make sense to allow ANY industry to police itself, and yet that has been the general practice of the current administration, supported in many cases by senators like Grassley.
In fact, there’s a spectacular double standard at work here. The drug industry isn’t supposed to be allowed to police itself, but just about ever other industry, from fast food to firearms, is. All kinds of products, unregulated, are potentially harmful to the public, which is often uninformed about the risks or too busy to investigate. And in almost all of those cases, the industries, left alone, will do the absolute minimum.
Keeping them honest is the essential job of our elected officials and our federal government. It would be good to see some articles examining how consistent folks like Grassley are on this matter. Actually, I checked. Grassley voted for the recent, successful bill protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
He also doesn't think the public needs to be protected from the highly predatory credit card industry, having voted earlier this year for the misnamed and regressive "bankruptcy reform" legislation, which further traps consumers in a spiral of debt. So, Senator Grassley, good going on the pharmaceutical front. Now, about those other matters......
SCREENING FOR PSYCHOPATHS
Over at the Progressive Review, Sam Smith is, in his inimitable fashion, illustrating why that Washingtonian won’t be supping at the Bush White House anytime soon. (He was pretty tough on Bill Clinton, too). Yesterday, he published the following, which is included here merely to inspire discussion – and in no way suggests any sort of conclusions, or that I wish to be visited by Patriot Act attitude inspectors.
Under the heading, “Is Bush a Psychopath?”, Smith published a checklist from psychopathy expert Robert Hare -- and suggested readers might also want to run the test on John Bolton, and, while they're at it, perhaps on their own boss.
Again, emphasizing that this is merely a “fun exercise” which one could harmlessly test against almost any public figure, I’ve taken the liberty to edit down the list a bit, since some factors just seem to have not even theoretical relevancy, such as having had many short marriages. (The full list is viewable at http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm )
1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.
2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.
3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.
8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.
10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.
12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.
[Smiths’s Note: GWB used to blow up frogs with firecrackers when he was a kid]
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
Thursday, August 4, 2005
STAY/GO;OUTSOURCING TERROR; TINKER; IGNORANCE; ON
DECK
OUTSOURCING TERROR
Chilling insight into the dramatic increase in Iraq bombings (via tip from Slate’s Today’s Papers), suggesting that terrorism is now an outsource industry with increasingly professional standards:
>The most in-depth (and fascinating) report TP has seen on Iraqi bombs—aka IEDs—comes from industry pub Defense News. A snippet:
Small, highly skilled IED cells often operate as a package and hire themselves out to the more well-known insurgent groups, such as Amman Al Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq or the Sunni group Ansaar al Sunna. They advertise their skills on the Internet. ...
Nine times out of 10, the military and intelligence officers said, the insurgents videotape IED attacks. The insurgents scrutinize the tapes—much as a coach watches postgame film.<
If this is true (and Defense News is no extremist publication) then matters are far worse than we know. Talk about a professionalized military...
STAY OR GO?
At least one credible former top intelligence official thinks GO. Writing for www.niemanwatchdog.org, Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), an ex-Director of the National Security Agency, reviews the reasons given for not withdrawing from Iraq – and concludes that these worst-case scenarios already exist.
Here are excerpts:
“If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq , the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren't they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.....
>There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American......
>Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"
>On Iraq's neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.
>Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military's institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.
>Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.
You can read the full text here
IRAQ TINKERING
Given the press’s (and presumably the public’s) fascination with the most minute details of the repairs to the space shuttle Challenger – removing cloth fillers and such – one wonders what might happen if a fraction of that vast communal attention could be focused on, say, Iraq.
Why did so many Marines die the other day? Why was their vehicle so poorly armored? Why, after so much talk about the failure to harden troop vehicles, are they still so vulnerable? How much of the tax rollback to the superrich would need to be redirected to dramatically reduce the slaughter of young Americans over there?
The Challenger mission is stirring, but can’t we afford to direct a little attention at keeping alive those who are fighting for America?
FAITH IN IGNORANCE
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical
belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
(Henry Louis Mencken / 1880-1956)
In religion and politics people's beliefs and
convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without
examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the
questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other
non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass
farthing."
(Mark Twain / 1835 - 1910 / Autobiography / 1959)
The old days, when journalists like HL Mencken and Mark Twain said what they thought of those who would instruct us in morality, are long gone. Today, the typical newspaper treats religious content with all appropriate delicacy. Couple of notable exceptions of late -- where the writers let us at least glimpse some powerful religious figures in their full intellectual regalia:.
In the New York Times Magazine of July 24, we read a profile of Yechiel Eckstein, an Orthodox rabbi who has “built an empire for Jewish causes on the contributions of Red State born-again Christians.” Here, he visits with the leadership of a 5,000-seat church:
>The door opened, and Bishop Frank Munsey walked in. He is Pastor Munsey's father. Bishop Munsey founded the Christian Family Center 50 years ago and then passed it along to his son. Someday Pastor Munsey will turn it over to his own son, Kent, who is now the center's youth pastor. ''We call it the Levitical order of succession,'' David Jordan Allen, the associate pastor, told me. Pastor Munsey made the introductions. ''Meet Rabbi Einstein,'' he said to his father, misspeaking. ''You've seen him on TV. He's the head of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.''
''You from the Jewish side or the Christian side?'' the elderly bishop asked. Lately he had been spending a good deal of time in Bulgaria, where the church runs a mission school that is waiting for a license.
''Jewish,'' Eckstein said, touching his small black skullcap.
This struck the bishop as a stroke of luck. He seemed to be under the impression that Jews govern Bulgaria and had been involved in withholding accreditation from his school. Now here was a rabbi sitting right in the greenroom. ''I'd like to ask you a favor,'' he said, handing Eckstein a card. ''Maybe you can get somewhere with these Bulgarians.''<
In today’s Wall Street Journal is an article about Islamic councils around Europe that advise Muslims on life decisions, large and small.
>Europe's most influential Muslim rule-making body is known as the European Council for Fatwa and Research. It was set up by an organization and scholars tightly allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that has widely penetrated Muslim life in Europe. Its stated goal is to help Muslims integrate into Europe by offering moderate religious opinions. Some of its opinions do that: Despite criticism from many scholars in the Middle East, it issued an opinion allowing European Muslims to buy houses with mortgages, which are usually forbidden due to the traditional Islamic ban on interest.
But the group is also dominated by outsiders with little idea of what is acceptable in the West. At one meeting attended by a Wall Street Journal reporter, a council member cited "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a notorious anti-Semitic forgery written in czarist Russia, in a position paper on how Muslim families are under threat in Europe. The Protocols, the speaker said, was evidence of a Jewish plot to undermine Muslim moral values through sexual permissiveness.>
ROVE ON DECK?
The headline in today’s New York Times began so promisingly. “Congress, in Perjury Investigation, Seeks Records About….”
Well, Congress seemed to have finally gotten its act together. This very powerful man, believed to have lied about matters vital to the American people, has been asked by congressional leaders to deliver a broad set of records about his doings.
Karl Rove? Um, no. Rafael Palmeiro. The Orioles slugger with the steroid issue.
>The leaders of a
Congressional panel wrote to Major League Baseball yesterday to ask for
a broad set of records related to Rafael Palmeiro's steroids suspension.
Palmeiro independently said he would ''fully cooperate'' with the
request and answer any further questions by any member of the House
Committee on Government Reform, the group that he testified before in
March, when he pointed his finger and adamantly denied ever using
steroids.
Rich Levin, a spokesman for Major League Baseball, said at the close of
business yesterday that the commissioner's office had not yet received
the request from Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the
committee, and Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and the
committee's ranking minority member.
''I'm sure we'll cooperate with the committee, as we have in the past,''
Levin said.
In a statement, Davis and Waxman said they were seeking the results of
Palmeiro's drug tests, the date of the tests and other information. The
panel is interested in whether Palmeiro misled Congress and why it took
so long -- about three months -- between the time Palmeiro's urine was
tested and the announcement of a positive result…..<
Who says Congress can’t show bipartisan resolve when it needs to? Let's scrutinize the urine tests. The American people are pissed off!
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
PROFANITY; ON SECOND THOUGHT; CENSORSHIP; DUMB BY DESIGN?
POOPOOHING PROFANITY
Did you hear how a number of newspapers declined to run a recent
Doonesbury strip in which the Bush character refers to Karl Rove as "Turd
Blossom?" What's funny about this is that is Bush's actual nickname for
his right hand man (or perhaps I should say "that's what Rove's
right-hand man calls him".)
It seems the moniker was just too profane. Of course, these papers'
desire to protect their readers' sensibilities can be expanded to a
whole range of matters, including, for example, the profane details of
how this country went to war. And speaking of profanity, what's more
profane? The two words 'turd blossom' or the 12 words falsely asserting
that Iraq was
acquiring nuclear fuel in Niger that President Bush uttered in his 2003
State of the Union address? That assertion, which helped ramp up support
for war, ran counter to what the government knew at the time to be true.
This was known to be a canard by Joseph Wilson, the man sent to Niger to
investigate the allegation -- who had returned nearly a year earlier to
report its falsity. When he went public with this, administration
officials spread a misleading story about his wife's work for the CIA,
which ended up exposing the covert operative's identity. And it was that
scandal that Garry Trudeau was addressing in his "obscene" cartoon
strip. Admittedly, the nickname "turd blossom" shouldn't be used, since
it is so unfair: as Rove will tell anyone, there's nothing about him
that conjures up a blossom of any sort.
Speaking of which, a friend writes to report hearing on National Public
Radio about the leisure-time activities of New York Times reporter Judy
Miller (who is in jail for refusing to tell what she knows about the
White House's politically-motivated, deliberate leak of Valerie Plame
Wilson's role as a CIA operative.) According to the report, Miller is
busy reading Solzhenitsyn. Not to suggest that she's after publicity or
grandiose, but I hear that her next project will be tackling Nelson
Mandela's memoirs of his years at South Africa's notorious Robben Island
maximum security prison. Judy has praised her DC jailers for extending
her every courtesy, and it doesn't sound like she's out on the chain
gang, so presumably she's casting a wide net in seeking inspiration for
her inevitable bestseller on her experience.
ON SECOND THOUGHT....
AND speaking of Miller, just learned (from Editor & Publisher) that
"Writers Group Rescinds 'Conscience in Media' Award Given to Judith
Miller".
Here's the short piece in its entirety:
>> The board of The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA)
has voted unanimously to reverse an earlier decision to give its annual
Conscience in Media award to jailed New York Times reporter Judith
Miller,
E&P has learned.
The group's First Amendment committee had narrowly voted to give Miller
the
prize for her dedication to protecting sources, but the full board has
now
voted to overturn that decision, based on its opinion that her entire
career, and even her current actions in the Plame/CIA leak case, cast
doubt
on her credentials for this award.
The group's president, Jack El-Hai, posted an explanation on an internal
list-serve yesterday, noting the opposition from the rank and file, and
also
mentioning two other reasons for the unanimous vote:
* “A feeling that Miller's career, taken as a whole, did not make her
the
best candidate for the award”
* “Divided opinions on the board over whether her recent actions merit
the
award.”
The American Society of Journalists and Authors is a 50-year-old group
of
some 1,100 non-fiction independent writers. The earlier vote by its
First
Amendment committee had already prompted at least one member of that
panel
to quit her position.
Anita Bartholomew, a freelance journalist who has contributed to
Reader's
Digest, wrote in a resignation letter, "The First Amendment is designed
to
prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding
a
government official or officials who attempted to use the press to
retaliate
against a whistleblower, and scare off other would-be whistleblowers,
has
allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of,
whistleblowers. When your source IS the government, and the government
is
attempting to use you to target a whistleblower, the notion of shielding
a
source must be reconsidered. To apply standard practices regarding
sources
to hiding wrongdoing at the highest levels of government perverts the
intent
of the First Amendment.”
El-Hai told E&P at that time, "It is unusual to have this kind of
disagreement about an award, but independent writers are a prickly
bunch.”<<
ABC's OF CENSORSHIP
Independent writers may be a prickly bunch, but so are network
correspondents, and so are Kremlin-dwelling authoritarians.
For the first time since the end of the Cold War, Russia has decided to
ban a news organization. In tossing ABC News out, Moscow was retaliating
for the network's interview with the Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev.
This latest attempt by the Putin administration to control the news
media should not be allowed to stand. Groups like Reporters Without
Borders condemned the decision, but we need to see a lot more than that.
How about the other networks announcing that so long as ABC is barred,
they won't maintain a bureau either? Print organizations could do the
same thing.
Such action might seem extreme, but it's the only way to prevent a
steady erosion that ends up harming all news organizations, and, worse,
keeps the public from hearing other viewpoints in crucial matters like
the never-ending Chechen bloodbath.
However, we're a long way from true solidarity in this craft. Even in
the comparatively free White House press corps, reporters show
surprisingly little willingness to support their colleagues whose tough
questions get the stonewall treatment. And doing the right thing to back
up ABC requires a certain amount of self-sacrifice by highly
competitive, for-profit enterprises. Alas, it's usually the bean
counters who decide these things.
DUMB BY DESIGN
On Monday, the president told a group of Texas journalists that he he
thought that public schools should teach both evolution and "intelligent
design." I'm always curious in whose interest it is to spread such
dubious buzz phrases. "Intelligent design"? That's pretty self-serving,
like "Tort Reform," "Ownership Society" and all the other doozies Karen
Hughes spun out like honey.
"Intelligent design" is supposed to mean that the universe was no
accident, but seems to suggest that humans as a group are intelligent,
or that the supreme being was being intelligent in creating humankind.
Speaking as one of those humans, I'm glad to be thought of as
intelligent, but I think one can make an argument that the entire
evolution-in-the-schools debate suggests that maybe that's way too
generous an interpretation.
Actually, I propose we start using the term "intelligent design" only
when discussing, say, motor vehicles that use little or no fossil fuels,
or easily-understood election ballots.
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
STUNNING; BOLTON THRU CROWD; BIPARTISAN BUMP; DUBIOUS ENDORSEMENT
STUNNING
The New York Post and other tabloids usually love items like this, but
rarely do we see them in august broadsheets such as the New York Times.
It's in that 'Bizarre Happenings' category, but actually illustrative of
a broader problem.
>>August 2, 2005
Police With Tasers Battle Party Guests
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WELLINGTON, Fla., Aug. 1 (AP) - Summoned because of a fight over a
spilled drink, deputies broke up a teenage girl's coming-of-age party on
Sunday with Taser stun guns, pepper spray and their elbows and fists.
Nine guests were arrested, and one was taken to a hospital for treatment
of face and head injuries.
The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office said that the crowd of 300 had
been "unruly and hostile" and that as many as 20 had fled after
attacking the deputies. The officers used "pepperball guns, Tasers,
batons, fist and elbow strikes" to disperse the crowd, Sgt. Edmund
Suszczynski said in an incident report.
Some guests said that the fight, which began on the dance floor, was
over and that people were trying to leave by the time deputies arrived
at the quinceanera, a party held in Latin American communities to
celebrate a girl's 15th birthday. <<
More and more, police are using tasers with abandon. And one sees an
increasing number of assertions that tasers, which use electrical
current to shock and subdue, can in some cases be life-threatening.
Taser is a highly politicized product -- the company has hired
well-connected former law enforcement officials to help it get
visibility and contracts -- including Bernard Kerik, the former NYC
police commissioner who was briefly a nominee as Homeland Security
secretary.
Inquiries into the growing use of tasers by police departments -- by
government and by the media -- are long overdue. And that's pretty
shocking.
-----
BOLTON THRU THE CROWD
Did you see that John Bolton, appointed by President Bush as UN
ambassador during the congressional recess and despite widespread
condemnation of his anti-UN views, was booed on the sidewalk outside the
UN?
Usually, the US gets booed in the international community after doing
something for a while. It's great that we're being proactive in getting
things started early. No procrastination with this White House!
-----
BIPARTISAN BUMP
So many groups run full-page ads in the New York Times, many of them a
bit daffy or suspect (like authoritarian governments hyping their
business-friendly climate) that it's tempting to just flip past them.
Today, that would be a mistake.
An ad from something called the "Partnership for a Secure America" is a
bit low-key, but a careful read shows that it is of singular importance.
It is signed by a list of eminent former government officials, almost
evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, including the United
States' well-respected, recently departed UN ambassador "Jack" Danforth,
and Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of state for Bush's father. The
headline, "Why are We Pulling Apart When We Should be Pulling Together,"
sounds a bit boosterish; the details are anything but. If you read
slightly between the lines, you can see this open letter is actually a
minor watershed, a call to arms, a bipartisan denunciation of the course
taken increasingly by the administration.
Among other things, it advocates
-an "unfailing commitment to democracy, justice, and civil liberties
both at home and abroad" (RB note: read 'Abu Ghraib,' 'Patriot Act,'
etc)
-"building strong alliances" (RB note: stop tearing down the UN, and
don't send in people like John Bolton, who disrespect multilateral
cooperation)
-"secure existing stockpiles of weapons materials in Russia and
elsewhere" (RB note: don't start phony wars over weapons that don't
exist -- do more about the weapons that really do)
-"our local emergency responders...must be given the resources they
need" (RB note: How in the world can you keep giving the super-rich tax
breaks while denying funding for viable homeland security measures in
the current dangerous situation?)
-"invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy" (RB note:
Jiminy Cricket, how can you keep encouraging people to buy Hummers and
to base our country's foreign policy on securing foreign oilfields when
the sane solution is right in front of you?)
-"America and our allies must address global poverty, disease, and
under-development" (RB note: look guys, we need to stop treating the
growing global chaos as purely a military and police matter. Face it:
you don't see the super-rich or even the middle class blowing themselves
and others up. There's crucial context missing in the way we talk about
the 'war on terror.')
DUBIOUS ENDORSEMENT
The big news is Baltimore Orioles slugger Rafael Palmeiro being
suspended for having used steroids, after testifying before Congress
that he hadn't. He has now revised "I never used steroids, period", so
now it is "I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever.
Period."
Despite growing criticism, at least one person is standing firm behind
him: President Bush, who was his boss when Palmeiro played for the Texas
Rangers. "Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I
believe him," Bush told a few reporters in Texas (via Knight Ridder via
Slate). "He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of
the klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him.
Still do."
Actually, like Palmeiro, Bush has revised some of his own positions, vis
a vis, say, the reason for invading Iraq, and, most recently, how tough
he intends to be with possible staffers (Karl Rove?) who deliberately
leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to discredit her
husband, an administration critic. Originally, leaking was essentially a
firing offense, now, intentionally leaking in a particular way PLUS
getting caught are the criteria for ousting.
Today, my sources tell me, Palmeiro will endorse Bush on that, and,
since he's a Cuban, will also call for tougher sanctions against Castro
-- who has no defense, having never denied doing anything intentionally.
Monday, August 1, 2005
TERROR SPRAWL; GUANTANAM-ERRORS; LANGLEY LOWDOWN
TERROR SPRAWL
This past weekend, I had a good look at some of the British newspapers'
coverage of the successful and attempted bombings of the London
transport system. And what comes through more than anything is the utter
futility of halting such attacks -- and the slap-in-the-face realization
that, really, now, almost anyone can be a perpetrator.
True, you probably won't see a lot of 90-year-olds blowing up themselves
and/or others, but beyond that, it is becoming virtually impossible to
really effectively profile a likely perpetrator. Elaine Sciolino,
reporting for the NY Times in today's paper, has the same general take.
> "Hard-core Islamists are mixing with petty criminals," she quotes the
director of Frances' domestic intelligence service. "People of different
backgrounds and nationalities are working together. Some are
European-born or have dual nationalities that make it easier for them to
travel..."<
President Bush nevertheless clings tenaciously to the most simplistic,
reductionist rationales in continuing to assert that the US must remain
in Iraq to fight terrorism. Rarely does he even tacitly acknowledge the
role of the invasion and occupation in inflaming passions throughout the
world -- and recruiting an ever-more-diverse army of the aggrieved.
By almost any indicator, Bush leaves us not only in a much more
dangerous world, but one that is increasingly unmanageable by any of the
conventional and acceptable calibrations of force and surveillance.
When, one wonders, can we expect thoughtful Americans of influence to
begin demanding that this calamity be honestly addressed? As European
leaders of all political stripes quickly (and with refreshing candor)
take stock of the situation, the failure of American leaders (notably
those of Bush's own party) to do likewise grows more striking. A handful
--John McCain among them -- are starting to break ranks here and there,
but it will take a whole lot more exhibitions of courage before we can
as a society begin apprehending the magnitude of the mistake, and start
doing something about it.
GUANTANAM-ERRORS
Two that are doing the right thing are Maj. John Carr and Maj. Robert
Preston, Guantanamo prosecutors who resigned instead of participating in
what they concluded were nothing but show trials of those rounded up for
alleged terrorist activity and sent off to the detention center.
In e-mails released to the press, the two made a number of allegations,
including that colleagues ignored torture allegations and withheld
information from superiors. They also characterized the justice process
for detainees to be totally stacked to reach guilty verdicts. Probably
the most alarming of a host of disturbing allegations is Carr's
assertion that he was told that the only evidence which might have been
helpful to detainees in mounting a defense was contained in documents
being withheld by the CIA for "security reasons."
Consider those concerns against this background:
(1) Congress is poised to enshrine the oppressive USA Patriot Act for
years more
(2) the Administration is classifying record amounts of paperwork as too
sensitive for the public eye
This is not good news for fans of democracy, freedom, or justice.
LANGLEY LOWDOWN
While we're at it, let's talk about the CIA officer who is suing the
agency, described in an article in today's paper. He says he was fired
for producing reports questioning the CIA's characterizations of issues
relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Among other things, the former
agent alleges that the brass did not want to hear claims from an
informant that Iraq's nuke-related programs, including uranium
enrichment, had ended years prior to the 2003 invasion.
If the growing body of such allegations of deliberate malfeasance in the
intelligence-reporting process aren't enough to warrant a special
prosecutor, I'll eat my decoder ring.