buzz twang

Intelligence has always been the key to winning a war. Real information. When propaganda is used to win wars, with no real time intel on the ground, that war is lost. Current wisdom is pointing towards these facts. Something to think about. From the BBC. Listen. (Real Player)

All Fascist movements need a scapegoat, a focus for the anger and blame. In the case of the modern right-wing movement, it’s the cowardly, treasonous, mentally disturbed Liberal.

Via Digby, an example of the hatred and outright Fascist desire expressed for all to see, mixed with a bit of historical fantasy. Did you know that science didn’t exist at the time Christianity was conceived? It’s amazingly steeped in propaganda and disinformation gleemed from the right-wing mediasphere and blogs as well as a steady diet of anti-Liberal anything against my president is treason happy meal.

STEM CELLS AND LIBERALS

Firstly, we might thank the South Koreans for stem cells since they seem to be leading the way. If a loved one is saved from a slow horrible death by stem cells you might also thank conservatives since they saw fit to invade South Korea and save it from the Liberal Communists. Instead of starving to death under big government, the freedom loving South Koreans are now inventing stem cells to save your life. Oh how it must kill the cowardly liberals to see it.

As for the slippery slope objections raised regarding stem cells, one has to wonder, since every slope is slippery and everything is on a slippery slope. We have a well respected Constitution that has kept everything nicely balanced on the slippery slope for 200 years. We have a huge military, 1000’s of local police forces as well as about 22 Federal police forces, The Social Security Administration, an ever growing Federal Budget, the Supreme Court, labor unions, Congress, a one man Executive Branch who can take us to war with the phony Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or a phony search for weapons of mass destruction, but through it all our remarkable Constitution has kept power sufficiently divided so that our country has not fallen prey to many of the evils that had afflicted every society before it, throughout all of human history. And, as if that has not been enough, we have even created and preserved the freedom that much of the rest of the world enjoys.

In comparison to all the evil that might have afflicted us, stem cells seem like a trivial threat, but an incredibly huge potential benefit. The threat is that one day we’ll take stem stem cells from older and older embryos or even full grown human beings who are raised for spare parts or even as alter egos. The benefit is that stem cells might cure every sickness on earth. It might save billions of lives from death and excruciatingly painful illness! That this is a good thing ought to be the most painfully obvious thing in the world. If it isn’t obvious, it will be when they or a loved one is dying, at least to about 99% of us in that position.

Perhaps it feels like a threat to many because it is too good to be true; it is a threat to normalcy because eternal life removes too much of the normal burden of everyday life? Indeed, life would be totally redefined. Everything could be put off till tomorrow, but every goal could eventually be reached too. It scares the religious right to death given that their religion was conceived of at a time when science was not. Or, could it be that science, with its nuclear bombs, global warming, genetic technology, and abortions is merely the weapon with which we will finally manage to destroy ourselves as per biblical prophecy?

In any case we face an inevitable brave new world. The immediate problem in which is that you have to kill the embryo to get the stem cells. Never mind that the embryo was scheduled to be killed anyway, or that nature aborts most pregnancies spontaneously, or that we kill 40 million dogs from neglect every year or kill 100 million cows each year all of whom seem far more human than a few embryonic cells too small to even see. Yet to abortion opponents harvesting these stem cells is close to an abortion since there is an embryo or embryo like thing dying in each case.

In reality it is not an embryo since it has been especially prepared by removing genetic material from the mother (egg donor) to be replaced by genetic material exclusively from the patient who wishes to be cloned, or to merely harvest stem cells that eventually can replace damaged cells in his or her own body. The embryo is not put in a human womb or incubator where it might develop into a human being, although one assumes that it will be possible to do so in the very near future.

Personally, seeing an embryo meet its end this way, not even considering the incredible possible benefits, is less troubling than seeing a live lobster being dropped into a pot of boiling water, or a puppy dog being tossed into an incinerator, which we do and ignore millions of times each year.

But, in 100 years when each of us can whip up a nuclear device, weaponized anthrax, and a clone of ourselves that will live forever, sophisticated liberals might well wish quaint religious little old Bush had been taken more seriously. This seems especially true given that today’s liberals don’t have the brains or the guts to go to the Axis of Evil to take away the very deadly, but still very rudimentary, technology that they are manifestly far too immature to handle. Today’s liberals are failing brave new world kindergarten badly.

My own view is that the brave new technological world is inevitable, possibly very beneficial, but catastrophically dangerous as long as cowardly and dumb liberals are involved in the management of it.

As Digby put it: This is the problem we face, ladies and gentlemen. Better learn to put on better show because reason is clearly inoperative.

Pretty much avoided commenting upon the release of pictures of Saddam Hussein in his jail cell, au naturale, since it was such an obvious case of disinformation and propaganda. Sometimes it’s best to wait until the fur stops flying.

It was a well handled and interesting bit of propaganda. The media and the public all reacted to it on the emotional level desired. It made people laugh, it made them angry. But, it made them react and reinforced an attitude towards Hussein. No one really questioned any of the hyperbole and contradictions regarding the photos. It was the definition of a well oiled propaganda campaign.

The Pentagon and Bush White House wins on all counts. Bitch all you want about it being a violation of the Geneva Convention. Just add it to the ever growing list of violations by the US.

Assume that the official US stance is true, and the pictures were taken by unknown person or persons, either by taking direct photos of Hussein or lifted from surveillance cameras. What does this say about the discipline of the security detail surrounding the worlds most feared dictator and enemy of the entire world?

It means that there are people, unknown to the Pentagon apparently, who have access to Hussein, or at least, access to the secured perimeter and surveillance system. This means in essence that the security around Hussein is compromised. This has ramifications beyond the taking of simple pictures. Right? Apparently not.

It just looks so ridiculous. The mere fact that the pictures got out at all is proof that it was a controlled event.

The exact specifications of Hussein’s incarceration are unknown, but it goes without saying that his cell and its perimeter are strictly controlled. All visual and physical access to Hussein is monitored, under digital surveillance, and that surveillance is controlled to the millisecond and backed up. Not a millisecond of the entire area goes uncovered and unwatched. We are talking about the worlds most guarded prisoner, correct?

It would be no great task to know who was doing what at any given moment in and around Hussein’s cell. It’s fair to say that it is also known who is where at any given moment, and access to all visual lines of sight to Hussein, either real or surveillance, is strictly controlled. If you see Hussein, then someone is also seeing you. That is to say, someone is watching the watchers. And, the list of people with such access is likely very short, and controlled to the person.

Murderers on any death row in the USA are under similar surveillance. Access to those areas is controlled to the person and the moment.

So, if pictures from such a controlled area are released into the public domain, it is more than fair to assume that the military structure around Hussein can accurately pinpoint who it was, and where and when those pictures were taken or lifted from the surveillance system. It is safe to assume that the access and the ability to get away with taking or lifting such pictures is limited as well, and getting caught doing so would be a serious violation, no?

Are we to believe that access to the worlds most dangerous man is that wide open, that what amounts to a paparazzi in the military detail can take a photo of Hussein in his secured, undisclosed location as easily as if it were Brad Pitt on the beach?

No matter how one looks at it, it’s either deliberate or extremely incompetent.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that it is possible to get such information from the surveillance system or getting that close to Hussein to take a photo and then being able to dodge the surveillance and security without getting caught or having it recorded in some manner. That is, without some type of real cooperation by those within the security area. (For a thousand bucks? Is that worth ruining your career over?)

This brings us to another point to consider. The pictures were purchased, as noted, for reportedly less than a thousand dollars by a news source owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, whose allegiance to the Bush White House is well established.

Let’s assume that it is as all sources state: the pictures were squired out of arguably the worlds most secured military area and given to The New York Post and The Sun in the UK for a measly thousand bucks.

Isn’t it more than logical to assume, considering their relationship with the Pentagon and White House, the New York Post and The Sun would likely be more than a little shy about printing pictures that are out and out examples of an obvious breech in security and discipline in the military structure around Hussein?

Isn’t it also safe to assume that both or at least one of those news sources would likely check with the Pentagon and / or the White House before they printed those pictures? I’d say that is a fair bet. Most especially considering the bad blood between the media and the Bush Administration.

Think about it for a minute. Think about the atmosphere of pure animosity and hatred that exists between the media and the Pentagon and Bush White House currently. It’s been bad blood for a long time. Think about how the White House and Pentagon could very well react with real anger at the printing of photos of Hussein.

We are being led to believe that news sources owned by a Bush Administration supporter printed the pictures of Hussein without first conferring with the Administration as to the source and ramifications of those pictures.

That is how one knows it was disinfo. Isn’t it safe to assume that if the pictures of Hussein were indeed unapproved and their existence unknown by the Pentagon and the White House that the New York Post and The Sun would be very wary of printing them, possibly incurring the considerable wrath of the Bush Administration and the Pentagon? But, they printed the photos.

Keep in mind that the news sources also stated from the beginning that the photos were approved by the Pentagon. They know to watch their backs, lest they become the next victim of the right-wing anti-media blitzkrieg.

And, the reaction of both the Pentagon and the White House was rather muted and controlled. “We are going to get to the bottom of this.” with a pretty controlled refutation of the entire incident.

Senior U.S. military sources told CNN on Friday the military did not give photos to The Sun — no matter what the newspaper says.

It was all great propaganda theater. The Pentagon got to say they were outraged, and blame the papers, even though it was one of theirs who took the photo in breech of security.

In the end, the photos are still out there, and Hussein the tyrant looks like your neighbors uncle who talks to his poodle… a fool in his fallen castle.

And, soon enough, it was all forgotten anyway…

When the base of power is mere ideology, rather than real works, it will all come tumbling down… it’s the law of nature. And, of civilizations. It applies to both Democrats, Repbublicans and everyone outside and in between.

In the heartland, Americans are turning away from George Bush and his war in Iraq; unfortunately, Howard Dean and the Democrats aren’t.
By Stewart Nusbaumer

Interstate 70, Indiana — He blasted out of my car radio as I zipped along Interstate 70 past boundless Midwest farmland.

“I’m no bleeding heart, understand? I’m a Republican. But I got to tell you I’m not feeling good about voting for Bush?”

“Why is that?” the radio host asked.

“You know, I really don’t care if they kill each other over there in Iraq. It’s not my concern. What I’m concerned about is every time I pull up to the gas pump I have to pay $2.50 a gallon. I’m concerned about our border — illegals are pouring across! I don’t care what they do to each other in Iraq.”

It was the voice of a straight-talking Joe Six-Pack from the Heartland of America. It was an angry white male who is now angry at President Bush. It was a Republican regretting that he voted for Republican George Bush. This sounded good.

“And I’m concerned about the economy, it’s not looking good. I don’t care what they say, it ain’t looking good.” Then he says, slower this time, “I’m not feeling at all good about voting for George Bush.”

While Republican Joe from Indiana has gone from supporting to opposing the war in Iraq, along with millions of other Americans, Howard Dean, the former antiwar Democratic presidential contender and now Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has changed from opposing the war to supporting the occupation of Iraq. Several weeks ago in Minneapolis, speaking at the American Civil Liberties Union convention, Dean, said: “Now that we’re there [in Iraq], we’re there and we can’t get out.”

Not all Democrats agree with Howard Dean’s view that we must stay in Iraq. Tom Hayden certainly doesn’t.

I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance in that country. We should end the war and foreign economic occupation. Period.

To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation’s moral reputation.

Although Joe Six-Pack probably has a negative view of the former 1960s activist, if he knows who he is, he agrees with Hayden that the war is not worth “another drop of blood” and we should not “throw good money after bad.” This conservative Republican from rural Indiana agrees with Jane Fonda’s ex-husband and the former leader of a radical 60s organization, Students for Democratic Society (SDS), yet disagrees with the chairman of the mainstream Democratic National Committee. If that doesn’t make Democrats nervous, they’re brain dead.

Opposition to the Iraq War is crossing the ideological divide. In the bars of America (which I know something about), non-liberals are getting fed up with this war. Although seldom stated explicitly, there is a growing feeling that Iraq is becoming another winless, bloody Vietnam, a disaster and humiliation in the slow making. In Republican strongholds in the Midwest, conservatives are reluctantly turning against not only the war but also the man who gave us this war, George Bush. Unfortunately, mainstream Democrats appear to be on the wrong side of this change.

Although Howard Dean (along with Dennis Kucinich) carried the antiwar flag during the Democratic presidential primaries, possibly costing Dean the nomination, he has now abandoned that position at the exact time Americans appear to be catching up to his antiwar stand. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake to get involved in Iraq, and the numbers are steadily increasing. The realization that Iraq was a mistake is now reaching even solid Bush supporters.

What this Republican from a Red state who voted for George Bush said — he wants our troops out of Iraq and our government to refocus on improving the economy, securing our national borders, and reducing the soaring price of gasoline — certainly sounds reasonable, and represents an opportunity for Democrats. Yet, if mainstream Democrats continue to believe that we must stay the Bush course in Iraq, then we will spend more billions of dollars — we’ve already spent $300 billion — and the United States will lack the resources to improve the economy and strengthen our security. In short, Democrats will lose the opportunity to grab the Joe Six-Pack’s of America.

Will Democrats, then, step forward and present a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq? Or will they simply mimic their Party’s chairman to stay the Bush course? Will Democrats craft a domestic agenda that focuses on the economy and national security, unlike Bush, whose agenda focuses on tax cuts and business benefits? Or will they continue to remain quiet? Will Democrats address the growing frustrations and disappointments of Bush supporters? Or are they too timid? We’re waiting to hear, and so is one angry Republican in Indiana.

When it comes down to it, this is the primary reason the rest of the world not only fears the United States, but hates it as well. From Jane’s:

Defence expenditure in the US will equal that of the rest of the world combined within 12 months, making it “increasingly pressing” for European contractors to develop a “closer association” with the US, corporate finance group PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) says.

Its report – ‘The Defence Industry in the 21st Century’ by PwC’s global aerospace and defence leader Richard Hooke – adds that “the US is in the driving seat”, raising the prospect of a future scenario in which it could “dominate the supply of the world’s arms completely”.

The US defence budget reached US$417.4 billion in 2003 – 46 per cent of the global total.

Less than two per cent of the US defence budget is spent outside its home market, the report notes, and of this around one per cent goes to UK contractors.

Hooke says: “The message for management teams in all this – apart from the obvious for US contractors to monopolise the industry – is that they will fail to maximise value if they fail to define accurately the business segment in which they operate.

“For Europe and the UK in particular, it means, right now, an increasingly pressing need to develop a closer association with the US market.”

Historically, being the country with the largest military expenditure does not bode well.

It will, in the end, only convince the Chinese to match and overcome the US’s military power, which they already plan to do, in a mere ten to twenty years. The reality is: we simply do not know how much the Chinese are spending. But, given a basic comparison of future economic and population… the US is at a distinct disadvantage.

Something to think about…

When I was in Omaha in November of 2004, during a family reunion, a case of suspected mad cow was reported in the United States.

It was front page news in the Omaha World Herald that entire week of November. What was interesting though, was the immediate reaction, across the board, of the World-Herald and all of the TV commentary. It was stated that the suspected mad cow event was untrue, never happened. A mistake.

What is so interesting about this is that the USDA released the inforomation of the suspected case of mad cow on November 18. By the next day, the World-Herald and every other news outlet in the state of Nebraska seemed to be saying it wasn’t really true. Meat industry spokespersons were saying the same. And, on November 23, the USDA was stating that more tests have now shown the suspected case of mad cow was a false alarm.

It really struck me at the time as an excellent example of industry spinning not only the news, but the USDA. It was so obvious back then. And, sure enough, the issue was swept under the rug.

But, such bulges of dirt have a way of becoming more apparent down the line…

From UPI on May 2,2005:“Feds probing alleged mad cow cover-up”-

Lester Friedlander, a former USDA veterinarian, told UPI he was questioned recently by two representatives from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General who were investigating statements he made before Canada’s Parliament in April.

“I told them I think there’s a cover-up,” said Friedlander, a 10-year veteran of the USDA who received official praise and recognition for outstanding performance during his tenure with the agency. [...]

In November 2004, a cow tested positive on two initial rapid tests, but it subsequently was ruled negative by the USDA on a different test. BSE-testing experts and consumer groups have questioned the agency’s rationale for not using a third type of test — called a Western blot — on the cow that may have helped clear up any confusion about whether the animal was infected.

But, confusion was exactly what they wanted, and it is what they got.

Is the American flag on equal footing with the Holy Book of Islam? Glenn Reynolds seems to think so.

…people were asking why, if Newsweek thought Koran-desecration was so bad, it had no qualms about portraying a dirtied American flag in a trashcan on the cover of its Japanese edition. Chalk it up to cultural insensitivity, I guess. Insensitivity, that is, to American culture. There seems to be a lot of that.

Leave it to the ever increasingnly confused and ideologically challenged Instapundit to make a misinformed cultural assumption whilst stepping into a steaming heap of hypocrisy.

Comparing the symbol of a nation – a flag – with a religious text which 1.3 billion Muslim’s believe to be the divinely inspired final words of G-d is nothing short of insipid. Yet, Reynolds endeavors to raise the bar of American ideology. “Old Glory” as Holy relic, or so it would appear. Even at it’s most simple, Reynolds point alludes to the belief that the flag is on an equal footing with what many believe to be Holy text.

Yes, “old glory” is an important national symbol. But, no one claims that it was inspired by the hand of G-d. Call me silly, but last time I checked, Betsy Ross wasn’t being worshipped as a Prophet.

Reynolds is just silly in the extreme. And, he is guilty of exactly what he claims Newsweek is doing.

To my mind though, Glenn’s point is much more egregious than the Neweek cover. Why? Because
flags are symbols. And, sometimes flags are used
to convey a point which is contrary or insulting.

It’s the very role a flag is meant to play in a culture. You know… just like it says in a certain song we all sing now and then: “… And the flag was still there…”.

Nothing like being insenstive to the religious beliefs of a billion plus of your fellow human beings in order to make your nationalistic progaganda point and swirl the waters of diversion.

Chalk it up to cultural insensitivity. There seems to be alot of that.

Those who would raise symbols like flags to represent a higher ideology, that of the religious experience, are to be feared.

When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women’s’ rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Whre prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto’s broke
No, they’re lazy, George, I say we don’t
Just give ‘em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That’s what God recommends

When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God

When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he’s not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?

I doubt it

I doubt it

Bright Eyes. Go watch and listen.

Good discussion going on over at Julian Sanchez’s blog on the reasons behind the Iraq war and the propensity for many on the right (exemplified by the out and out deceptive and denial based rambings of Instapundit) to lie, and deny in an attempt to revise history in order to justify their support for an administration and a war that was waged under false pretenses.

Political Friendster. Who’s zoomin’ who.

Dialogue between President Bush and a citizen during a February meeting in Nebraska, where Bush was trying to sell his scheme to privatize Social Security:

Woman: “That’s good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.”

Bush: “You work three jobs?”

Woman: “Three jobs, yes.”

Bush: “Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)”

Molly Ivins has much more to say on this matter. Such ignorance as exhibited by Bush is ultimately the fault of “dumb Dems”. Read on.

Pepe Escobar in the Asia Times:

To say that Sunnis are angry would be an understatement. Powerful Sunni tribal Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawer, one of the vice presidents, is threatening that all Sunnis may withdraw from the government – because this cabinet lineup is not what they had agreed to with Jaafari. No wonder: Sunnis wanted to finish off once and for all with de-Ba’athification, and insisted on a very firm Arab nationalist government.

Shi’ites from religious parties would never agree to these demands. Some Sunnis have already pulled out, such as the Front of Sunni Arab Blocs, which includes the Front of National Blocs and the National Dialogue Council. The Sunnis wanted seven ministries, especially Defense (they will probably get it; Jaafari is the acting minister). An alert Sistani was wise enough to have pressed for 10 ministries for the Sunnis. [...]

As things stand, there’s not a chance of the new government and parliament writing a draft constitution by mid-August. The political calendar will have to be delayed. Ominous signs abound. Moderates are dwindling, such as respected former diplomat Adnan Pachachi: he fled to the United Arab Emirates, perhaps in disgust, after his secular list received only one parliamentary seat in the elections.

The unsettling feeling about the cabinet is that it is hostage to a big picture it won’t be able to control. This is because the foundations for a new Iraq – in fact, the Year Zero imposed by the Americans after Shock and Awe – simply do not exist.

It makes me sad to know that so many preferred to jump on the public relations bandwagon and support an administration and its plans without fully understanding the realities on the ground in Iraq first.

The US waged a military and propaganda war on Iraq. The problem is: such tactics do not work on a population that hates you. Trying to make them love you doesn’t work either. If you occupy a nation by force, you will be vilified. Period. At no time in history has an occupying force, which did so by killing civilians, been welcomed as a liberating force by the majority public of that occupied nation. It simply does not work that way. You can’t kill members of a social structure and then expect the surviving memebers of that structure to embrace you or your ideals.

It’s basic social anthropology. People respond in kind to violence and perceived oppression, regardless of the occupiers goals and intentions. In this case, the Iraqi’s are becomeing more and more angry with the USA, (as is the entire world btw) and the escalating situation is in the long run harming us here at home.