Saturday, October 16, 2004

You don't have to go as far back as Vietnam to remember how different Bush and Kerry's foreign policy experience and views are. E.g. remember the late 1980s/early 1990s: while Bush was off at Camp David snorting cocaine, Kerry was up on Capital Hill trying to nail the death squads (Contras) that profited from selling that coke.

Robert Parry was one of the first reporters to uncover the Iran-Contra scandal and the original (1980) October Surprise -- the plot hatched by Wm. Casey (Reagan's campaign manager and CIA chief), George H.W. Bush and others to influence the election by making a deal with Iranian hostage-takers to hold them until after the election.

Parry is a seasoned investigative journalist who once worked for AP (where he and Brian Barger broke the Iran-Contra story) and then Newsweek, where he encountered resistance in tracking the scandal up the chain of command. After being forced out of Newsweek, he ended up producing a show on Iran-Contra for Frontline and then another on the October Surprise.

After the New Republic and Newsweek ran major hatchet jobs that backed Casey and Bush's flimsy alibis (i.e. that they could not have been in Paris for a meeting with the Iranians during the 1980 campaign because they were off at Bohemian Grove -- you know, that right wing antithesis of those Robert Bly retreats in the woods, where they get drunk and George Schultz reveals the tatoo on his ass, as they run around the fire naked, ghoulishly cackling cryptofascist chants with jack-o-lantern grins) ... but just about everyone but Parry dropped the case.

Years later, Parry went into a dusty storage space under one of the Congressional office buildings to look through the files of the closed Congressional investigation (careful not to copy too many pages in order to not attract too much attention from his minder) where he found a few smoking gun documents, including a Russian intelligence report that confirmed that Bush and Casey were in Paris during the final weeks of the campaign -- a vindication that would make a good spy novel scene.

Throughout the book there is a lot of lost history being recovered. And thankfully, the tone throughout the book is anything but conspiratorial, though it will be treated as such.

Also, underlying the thread of the story explores the question of whether there is a real difference between Kerry and Bush on foreign policy. After all, people say Kerry voted to authorize the war and the Patriot Act, has not come out and said he's against establishing 14 permanent bases in Iraq, and is a Sharon supporter and Free Trader.

All true, but apart from Kerry's nuanced explanation of his votes (which I've found is not enough for the tin-plated ears of my Nader-supporter friends) there is something else here: the historical trajectory of both men. Recall that while Bush was (according to Kitty Kelly) off snorting cocaine at Camp David while his daddy was President, Kerry was on Capital Hill leading an investigation into the Nicaraguan Contras’ ties to cocaine kingpins which, if Lee Hamilton had had any spine, might have resulted in nailing Bush Sr. (It must have made many cringe to learn that Hamilton was co-chair of the 9-11 commission).

And although people dismiss Kerry's record in Congress as unremarkable, in fact he has taken on and led a few of these politically difficult investigations, which have have been particularly embarassing for certain members of the Democratic establishment, such as the investigation into BCCI (the "Bank of Crooks and Commerce"), which could not have endeared him to Clark Clifford and friends. Let alone the radical right.

But “despite the attacks from the Washington Times and pressure from the Reagan-Bush administration to back off, Kerry’s contra-drug investigation eventually concluded that a number of contra units – both in Costa Rica and eventually concluded that a number of contra units – both in Costa Rice and Honduras – were implicated in the cocaine trade."

“It is clear that individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the contras was used by drug trafficking organizations and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers,” Kerry’s investigation stated in a report issued April 13, 1989. “In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring or immediately thereafter.”

And Bush?

The Kerry Commission nvestigation represented an indirect challenge to Vice President George H.W. Bush, who had been named by President Reagan to head the South Florida Task Force for interdicting the flow of drugs into the United States and was later put in charge of the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System. In short, Bush was the lead official in the U.S. government to counter the drug trade, which he himself had dubbed a national security threat.

(Funny that this was around the same time that Kitty Kelly reports W. was snorting coke at Camp David.)

Spencer Oliver, the Democratic staffer whose phone was bugged in Watergate and who later became chief counsel of the House International Affairs Committee, came to believe that former CIA Director Bush and CIA veterans attacked to the White House were the hidden hands behind all facets of the Iran-Contra scandal: the Nicaraguan contra operation, the Iranian arms initiative and the propaganda-driven “Project Democracy.” The key players, Oliver believed, were not the government officials who became household names during the scandal – Oliver North, Robert McFarlane, John Poindexter, etc. – but the ex-CIA men, the likes of Donald Gregg and Walter Raymond, who coalesced around Vice President Bush’s office and mostly stayed out of the spotlight.”

(Raymond ran a domestic propaganda campaign to keep Iran-Contra from bringing Bush down. I remember one of his operatives coming to a church in our suburb of Chicago to make a presentation that had absolutely no connection to the reality on the ground in Nicaragua. I recall being so apoplectic that I had to leave after objecting and calling him a "liar" and finding not a sympathetic person in the room, no surprise for such a Republican audience. The guy was there for damage control, not to debate. And if people there were skeptical, they would hardly cross over to the ranks of international solidarity movement, with all its Sandalistas and liberation theologian purists.)

Also, most of us have forgotten that Bush was helped into office by the Moonies and helped out after he retired when they paid the ex-president millions in return for lending his imprimatur to its expanding operations. Estimates of his fee for one appearance in Buenos Aires alone (where he vouched for the Moon-affiliated news organization when it bought a major paper there, calling the Washington Times a voice of “sanity”) ran between $100,000 and $500,000. One source told Parry that Bush stood to make as much as $10 million total from Moon’s organization (which in turn was reportedly funded by Japanese yakuza).

So it shouldn't surprise people that the guy who produced the new attack movie on Kerry that Sinclair announced it will run used to work for the Washington Times (though they say for less than a year). See Parry's web site, Consortium News for more on Moon.

Also, reading Parry's book suggests we should pay closer attention to the emerging scandals surrounding the nest of spies in the Pentagon that are being investigated for passing state secrets on to Iran (the same Office of Special Plans run by Douglas Feith coordinated the awarding of no-bid contracts to Halliburton before the war). The people go back a ways. Michael Ledeen, for example, was involved in the October Surprise.

But if Bush gets elected, it'll all be swept down the memory hole.

Americans owe Parry a debt of gratitude for the persistence that results in an historical narrative that ties a lot of isolated events together:

"Many of the events may seem on the surface disconnected, although many of the central characters have reappeared throughout the course of the drama and others were understudies of earlier characters, carrying on their mentors’ tactics and strategies. ... Viewed as a panorama of 30 years, a continuity becomes apparent. What one sees is an evolution of a political system away from the more freewheeling democracy of the 1970s toward a more controlled system in which consensus is managed by rationing information and in which elections have become formalities for the sanctioning of power rather than a valued expression of the people’s will. ...Privately – and sometimes publicly – Bush insiders celebrated this transformation of the United States from what George W. Bush used to call a “humble” nation into a modern-day empire driven by a quasi-religious certainty in its own righteousness."

Thursday, October 07, 2004

The L.A. times has a good popup interactive electoral map that lets you try to figure out who's gonna win and what are the key states by assigning them to one or the other

If you're betting Kerry's gonna win -- in the unlikely event that he does, you could make some cake through offshore betting:

The Boston Review publishes intelligent articles on a variety of political and literary topics. In the April/May issue they published End of the Wild -- a frightfully sober assessment of trajectory of extinction.
Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself.
-- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Lee Waters (Harvey Wasserman) has been writing a series of hilarious "transcripts" from the Oval Office. Very funny.

Monday, October 04, 2004

New bumper sticker: A Vote for Bush is a Vote for The Grandson of Hitler's Banker

The Guardian (9/25) has published a story based on a lawsuit by two Holocaust survivors and " newly discovered files in the US National Archives" which confirm that Prescott Bush was the director of a company "involved with the financial architects of Nazism."

Maybe Kerry supporters should start printing some new bumper stickers:
A Vote for Bush is a Vote for Hitler's Banker

No wonder Bush doesn't support the International Criminal Court of Justice.

Note the inherited character trait:

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" [John Loftus] said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

Thursday, September 16, 2004

If you want to understand how serious a quagmire we are now in -- way beyond Iraq and Afghanistan and regardless of the outcome of the election (though clearly if Bush wins, the acceleration towards a "Clash of Civilizations" war is much more likely) -- read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous (first outed as CIA analyst Michael Scheuer by Jason Vest)

As Richard Clarke wrote in the Post (6/04), "For those Americans who had begun to doubt whether the Central Intelligence Agency could produce good analysis, Imperial Hubris clearly demonstrates otherwise. It is a powerful, persuasive analysis of the terrorist threat and the Bush administration's failed efforts to fight it."

As Clarke notes, the problem w/U.S. war-planners is that the "war on Terror" is framed wrong. Terrorism is a tactic. The enemy is "an Islamic insurgency," a multinational movement to replace governments in the Islamic world with fundamentalist theocracies. Jihadist leaders believe they must eliminate the American presence in the region and U.S. support for existing governments there so that they can seize power.

The portrait of bin Laden painted by the author is of a kind of Islamic Che Guevara. I.e., though most Americans can't understand it, to many who live in Islamic countries, his cause is seen as righteous, religious, moral and logical.

We can't beat the Jihadists through sheer superior military force. The way we are going about things now in places like Iraq, we only plant the seeds of support for his cause. Unfortunately, it seems like some Christian fundamentalists and neocons would love to see the kind of "Clash of Civilizations" that many of the jihadists envision.

What did Bush say? "Bring it on."


Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

The Boston Review has a great series of articles on big topics. Rick Perlstein's piece on the what Democrats need to do to win (in the long run) is followed by various responses. Good stuff.
Want a great up-to-date map showing who should win the presidency based on current polls and electoral college? Go HERE.

Monday, July 26, 2004

It's been a while since I've posted, but here's my summer reading so far:

Two books by Geoff Dyer -- Out of Sheer Rage - a book of musings on D.H. Lawrence and Dyer's inability to finish his book about Lawrence. Not bad, though it'd be hard to say it beat's Henry Miller's Book of Lawrence. Dyer is good essayist - see Yoga for Those Who Can't be Bothered to Do It (reviewed earlier). I also read Dyer's Paris Trance, which is an okay romance for would-be exiles, but not as good as his essays. His penchant for clever philosophistry is more suited for essays.

Remembering Denny by Calvin Trillin (a sad but interesting nostalgia piece about a Yale classmate who was the BMOC who ended up failing to live up to expectations and committed suicide in his mid-50s...an exploration of why.)

The Bushwhacked Piano by John McGuane is a phenomenal short novel. Best I've read all summer. This guy's riffs are intense. A master.

And a few books about the Right (rather than just Bush):

First, The Right Nation by two writers from the Economist is basic overview of the right-wing in America, though it's sometimes a bit off and sympathetic to the Right. And gives too much of a sense of irreversibility about the right-wing takeover of politics.

Banana Republicans by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (the editors of PR Watch, whose first book on the PR industry is still their best: Toxic Sludge is Good For You). By the way, if you want to research dirt on corporate front groups, go to their site. Their weekly newsletter is excellent.

Regime Change Begins at Home by Charlie Derber is the best answer to the question: after we get rid of Kerry, what's next. I.e. how should we who see the problem not as Bush the person (though he's obviously a problem) look at the 2004 election and the long-term challenge to free America from Corporate Rule.

And I'm slowly plowing through Ulysses -- with help from the unabridged spoken CDs (42 hours) recorded by Irish actor Jim Norton. If you wanna read Ulysses, but think it will be too hard, here's a hint: use this unabridged CD set, it will really help. (Of course, you should also read some of the criticism to understand the styles he's using, structure of the novel, etc.). It's really helped me appreciate it as a comic masterpiece this time.

Monday, July 19, 2004

The summer of documentaries.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is the blockbuster, of course, but there are other great docs you shouldn't miss:

Orwell Rolls in His Grave

The Corporation

The Yes Men

"Le Monde Selon Bush" (The World According to Bush)

Poetry in Wartime


Also, be sure to watch JibJab's "This Land is Your Land" short online.
JibJam.com has a new 2004 campaign piece that beats the hell out of any political commercial you'll see this year.

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

ah, yes, the 100th Bloomsday...a time to reJoyce ... many a Doobyliner (not to mention the footnote fetishists) will be looking for incoherant clues deep in the first chapter of the Bibulo: Guinesses. The sanctimoney of our syphilization.

"Kinch, you fearful Jesuit!"

Joyce: I first met him in psychosis...

But why trust a blind-from-reading-too-much Irishman who averred "the ineluctable modality of the visible"??

And shouldn't that be "risible"?....

but yet...the slanguage rivveruns to the great grey sea our mother...
so we must return to the great Ulyseas, the white pages our sails!

If you really wanna dive in, try The Modern Word

Here's another good Joyce page.

Oh...and then there's Finnegan's Wake. ("History is a nightmare from which I'd rather wake") The title an infinity sign made of two paradoxical puns stuck together:
"Fin" (Fr. - end) egin ("agin" - begin again)
and "Wake" (wake up or Irish death ceremony).

Put the two together and you have an infinity sign:
I.e. Joyce's glasses.

Oh, and check out this great Pynchon page. Good time-waster.

Monday, June 07, 2004

Everyone's talking about Ronnie. But do they remember the Reagan Legacy?
The 100th anniversary of Bloomsday is in ten days (16th). Those who still read Joyce will wanna check out this Joyce portal.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, speaking on President Wilson's crackdown on dissent after the U.S. entered WWI

Friday, May 21, 2004

John Dean, Worse Than Watergate, page 155:

"And the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense. It is also evidence of the mentality that characterizes the Bush-Cheney presidency, which has led to other abuses of presidential power, not unlike those underlying Watergate -- only worse."

From Democrats.com:

Poll Finds Americans Evenly Split on Impeaching Bush

There are about 20 groups polling Americans on political questions. But only ONE poll - Retro Poll - has the guts to ask Americans if Bush should be impeached for lying about Iraq. "26. President Bush misled the public and Congress by saying that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat to launch chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare against us. Do you think that misleading the public and Congress in this way in order to take the country to war is grounds for impeachment?" The results: Yes (38.9%), No (39.8%). In other words, Americans are split right down the middle. Remember that in 1998 Americans OPPOSED the impeachment of Bill Clinton by 2:1. Call other pollsters and tell them ask the impeachment question!


Check out Eric Idle's latest song.

Thursday, May 20, 2004

Economists are notoriously disconnected from day-to-day reality. Maybe the new journal EconJournalWatch will shake things up. But if it's only "scholarly comments on academic economics" it's likely to get lost in that house of mirrors.
Check out the Freeway Blogger

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Chomsky on Revolution:

No less insidious is the cry for 'revolution,' at a time when not
even the germs of new institutions exist, let alone the moral and
political consciousness that could lead to a basic modification of
social life. If there will be a 'revolution' in America today, it
will no doubt be a move towards some variety of fascism. We must
guard against the kind of revolutionary rhetoric that would have
had Karl Marx burn down the British Museum because it was merely part
of a repressive society. It would be criminal to overlook the serious
flaws and inadequacies in our institutions, or to fail to utilize
the substantial degree of freedom that most of us enjoy, within the
framework of these flawed institutions, to modify them or even
replace them by a better social order. One who pays some attention
to history will not be surprised if those who cry most loudly that
we must smash and destroy are later found among the administrators
of some new system of repression.

Source: Introduction to American Power and the New Mandarins(1969),
pp. 17-18.
Check out BushFlash.Com
Another memory hole: the Center for Cooperative Research has archive of 9/11 timeline and Iraq war (exploration of all justifications, etc.), and an extensive History of U.S. Inteventions.
Check out Halliburton Watch.
Check out this Bush ratings chart.

Sunday, May 16, 2004

Thom Hartmann just published another book, this one in the tradition of political cartoonists like Art Spiegelman, takes on the serious question of whether we want democracy in the U.S. (or, potentially, fascism). It's called We the People.

Monday, April 05, 2004

Here's a site that's worth a look: take the Chernobyl ghost town tour.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

It always seemed to me that "The Matrix" is a perfect metaphor for a corporate-controlled society. The dominant institutions of our society -- created by us to serve us -- instead now enslave us. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the last Presidents to recognize the corporation as a Frankenstein monster in 1910: "The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being."

By then, it was too late. By then it was too late. Property had gained the right of people (the doctrine of corporate personhood was established in the 1886 Santa Clara decision). And now, people are once again becoming property (patenting of life).

Key to the machinery of corporate control is a corporate governance system that provides an illusion that what we have left somehow allows us to somehow control the corporation's behavior. The illusory notion of of "shareholder democracy" for instance (a paradox if there ever was one -- in a democracy, after all, it's one person/one vote), is supplemented by an additional illusion: that the interests of shareholders stands in perfectly for the public interest.

Instead, "share-centered corporate law creates the very problems it is meant to police," explains Daniel Greenwood in his essay, Enronitis: why Good Corporations Go Bad. "The single-valued profit maximization ethos of the share-centered corporation demands that managers teach themselves to exploit everyone around them: it is inevitable that some will learn this lesson so well that they will exploit even those for whose benefit they are supposed to be exploiting."

We buy into a self-colonizing system when we put our faith in notions such as "shareholder democracy":

"...the fictional shareholder resembles nothing more than a classic imperilist oppressor. The fiction we have created treats us as if we were a colonized people -- to be befirended, used or discarded only according to the interests of the colonizing power. But the colonizer is us and it is we ourselves we are colonizing."

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Republican Hypocrisy Revealed by the Armchair Subversive.
Check out Mad Magazine's Bush Action Figure

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Proposed Bush-Cheney bumper stickers:

1. Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!

2. BU_ _SH_ _!

3. Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.

4. Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism

5. Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!

6. Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind

7. Bush/Cheney '04: Less CIA -- More CYA

8. Bush/Cheney '04: Lies and videotape but no sex!

9. Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at
a time.

10. Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism

11. Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.

12. Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!

13. Bush/Cheney: Asses of Evil

14. Don't think. Vote Bush!

15. George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency

16. George W. Bush: It takes a village idiot

17. George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There

18. Vote Bush in '04: Because dictatorship is easier

19. Vote Bush in '04: It's a no-brainer!

20. Vote for Bush & You Get Dick!
Fight the Power.

Friday, February 20, 2004

There's a new movie that book lovers will enjoy, Stone Reader. It's about a middle-aged guy who decides to track down a writer who wrote just one book, a purportedly amazing novel.

Along the way he talks with other writers (many who attended the Iowa writers workshop), editors, a publisher and people for whom reading is important. It's a little hokey at times, but overall pretty enjoyable. Worth renting.

Monday, February 16, 2004

If military spending directly related to protecting oil supplies and other costs were reflected at the pump, gasoline would cost $5.28 a gallon in the U.S., according to Milton Copulos, a consultant the Energy Department hired in the 1980s to gauge Soviet oil potential.

(Source: "It No Longer Places Stability Above All Else in Mideast, as Move on Iraq Indicates" By ANDREW HIGGINS, WSJournal, 2/4/04)

The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that even in peacetime, maintaining military forces earmarked for military intervention costs $60 billion a year, or $1.58 per gallon. All paid in taxes rather than at the pump. More.
Someone called me with another "conspiracy" theory last week:

Janet Jackson's Superbowl halftime show was planned to distract the FCC from addressing her commercial promoter's media monopoly.

That was hard to believe. After all, she's got a new album coming out that she needs to sell (and perhaps help pay for her brother's legal defense).

But consider this:

As The Media Reform Network points out:
"Congress is having high-profile hearings to debate the crisis in American media. Media concentration? Nope - indecency. Spurred on by Janet Jackson's Super Bowl antics, Congress has decided to try to address the issue of television's 'race to the bottom.' Their answer? Increasing token fines on broadcasters that push the envelope with explicit content. We need your help to get Congress to focus on what's truly obscene: Big Media getting any bigger... Members of Congress are focused on the media today - we've got to tell them what really matters to us. We need you to call your representative in Congress. Urge him or her to co-sponsor House Joint Resolution 72, the resolution of disapproval that would roll back the new FCC rules. We need you to tell them that the real solution to the problems of our media has to address the root cause: the growing concentration of media ownership. Click below for your representative's information and detailed instructions."

Also, did you know that "Clear Channel buys outright entire tours by artists such as Janet Jackson"??
(Quote from "The story behind surprise 'Boss' show," by Joel Selvin, San Francisco Chronicle July 26, 2003)
Forget the documents. Read this story if you want to know if Bush was AWOL or not.
Paul Krugman reviews two new important books on Bush -- Kevin Phillips' book on the Bush family dynasty and Paul O'Neill/Ron Suskind's book on Bush.

In addition, Eric Alerman and Mark Green have come out with the Book on Bush, an elegantly-written review of W.'s record.

Sunday, February 08, 2004

On 9/26, 2000 the Chicago Sun-Times ran this letter by the local president of the AFL-CIO, who pointed out that Cheney was "AWOL" at voting booth. Given how bad his voting record was in Congress, it's too bad he wasn't more AWOL while he was there:


I can't help but comment on the irony recently. Illinois Lt. Gov. Corinne Wood rightfully acknowledged and commemorated the 80th anniversary of the adoption of the 19th Amendment allowing women the right to vote. She highlighted the struggles, perils and devotion to democracy that brave women such as Elizabeth Cady, Susan B. Anthony and Ida B. Wells displayed, all the while fighting for the right to vote.

Unfortunately, Wood's party's choice for vice president is Dick Cheney. It seems that in the last 16 state and local elections, Cheney voted only twice. He missed voting in his state and local elections 14 times! In fact, he did not even vote in the last primary in Texas, thereby not even voting for George W. Bush.

Cheney stated that "those elections only cover local issues like school boards." Apparently, Cheney does not know that his running mate is pushing for more "local control" of school boards. Doesn't he know that there are two procedures in Texas, known as "absentee" and "early voting," to assist out-of-town voters?

As a former secretary of defense, Cheney knows full well that American soldiers defend our country and democracy abroad. They put their lives on the line almost every day to protect our sacred right to vote. Cheney must not think voting is very sacred. When it comes to voting, Cheney is, so to speak, AWOL.

As the Democratic Party and the working families of the AFL-CIO gear up for voter registration, education on the issues and finally getting out the vote, it seems the Republican Party's first priority should be to get their own candidates to the polls.

Don Turner, president,
Chicago Federation of Labor AFL-CIO

Friday, February 06, 2004

Check out Dishonest Dubya. It takes a minute to load, but it's a lot of fun.

Speaking of lies. David Corn's The Lies of George Bush; Joe Conason's Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth; Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right; Christopher and Robert Scheer's The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq; Paul Waldman's Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You; Jerry Barrett's Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush. It's hard to keep up, isn't it?

It's usually not hard to tell when someone is blatantly lying if you have all the facts. But there are many kinds of lies. And it seems like we've seen the entire taxonomy of prevarication, pretense, coloring of the truth, affectation, duplicity, insincerity, hypocrisy, deliberate shallowness and moral turpitude, mealymouthedness, unctuousness, shedding of crocodile tears, pseudologicial mythomania, mendacity, exaggeration, spreading of canards, flimflammery, falsification or forgery of documents, propaganda and claptrap, varnishing of the truth, manipulation of the media, the cooking of books, adulteration of history, invention of excuses, Janus-faced hypocrisy, misleadership, distortion of the record, dishonest presentation of the facts, etc. in recent years.

If you're having a hard time sorting it all out, here's some help:

First, The Dictionary of Philosophy includes a list of everyday fallacies.

If that's too much detail, then use this short list produced by Democrats.com:

"It's sublime to watch Bush & Co. lie about something as simple as whether Bush went AWOL or not in 1972... When irrefutable proof emerges, the statements below will be exposed as pure lies. Of course, Bush & Co. are very skillful liars, so we have coded each lie as follows:

[LIE] Lie. An intentional statement of facts that are not true.
[SHL] Second Hand Lie. This technique involves quoting someone else telling a lie, so you can't be blamed for the lie.
[EVA] Evasion. This technique involves answering a question that is different from the one being asked.
[NDD] Non-denial denial. This technique involves simply saying 'no' without contradicting a single fact.
[CON] Condescension. This technique involves saying how 'sad' or 'pathetic' or 'desperate' it is that critics keep raising a question, without answering the question.
[PEA] Pre-emptive Attack. This technique involves calling your critics the most vile names, without citing a single fact to contradict the questions they raise."

=-=-=-=

Here's are two similar lie ladders that occur when someone has to shift their reasoning in order to defend a particular position.

First, Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law and Endangers Your Health, by Dan Fagin, Marianne Lavelle and the Center for Public Integrity includes this description by David Ozonoff of the series of defenses used by the asbestos industry (similar defensive lines are constructed by all the other industries responsible for killing and maiming workers, consumers and the environment, especially Tobacco, as explored in Stauber and Rampton's Trust Us, We're Experts):

Steering Science

Asbestos doesn't hurt your health.
OK, it does hurt your health, but it doesn't cause cancer.
OK, asbestos can cause cancer, but not our kind of asbestos.
OK, our kind of asbestos can cause cancer, bt not the kind this person got.
OK, our kind of asbestos can cause cancer, bt not at the doses to which this person was exposed.
OK, asbestos does cause cancer, and at this dosage, but this person got his disease from something else--like smoking.
OK, he was exposed to our asbestos and it did cause his cancer, bt we did not know about the danger when we exposed him.
OK, we knew about the danger wen we exposed him, bt the statute of limitations has run out.
OK, the statute of limitations hasn't run out, but if we're guilty we'll go out of business and everyone will be worse off.
OK, we'll agree to go out of business, but only if you let us keep part of our company intact, and only if you limit our liability for the harms we have caused.

(Note, Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root unit filed for bankruptcy last month -- but it will still be allowed to soak U.S. taxpayers for contracts in Iraq.)

Now, compare the above to this list from Revolutionary Worker #1228, February 8, 2004):

The Amazing Shrinking Justification for War: They Insisted the Weapons Are There, It is worth reviewing for a moment the statements of U.S. government officials. It is worth remembering how arrogantly they made their claims.

Vice President Dick Cheney, opening the war drive, Aug. 26, 2002:
"Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002:
"Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments into Iraq of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to nuclear weapons programs."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 19, 2002:
Iraq has "amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas."

George Bush, Sept. 28, 2002:
"The danger to our country is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."

National Intelligence Estimate, released as Congress was debating granting Bush war powers to attack Iraq, Oct. 4, 2002
"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons... including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX... Most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.''

George Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush, Cincinnati, Oct. 7, 2002:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof--the smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, Dec. 5, 2002:
"The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."

Colin Powell, UN Speech, Feb. 5, 2003:
"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce many, many more. We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

"Numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles."

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents... My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

George Bush, delivering his pre-war ultimatum to Iraq, March 17, 2003:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 18, 2003:
Any suggestion that Iraq had already destroyed its weapons was "palpably absurd."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, during the first week of war, March 30, 2003:
"We know where [the WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Promising the Actual Weapons After the War
Richard L. Gonzales, head of Defense Department weapons specialist team, April 16, 2003:
"We're not going to find just a smoking gun, but a smoking cannon."

George Bush, May 3, 2003:
"We'll find them, and it's just going to be a matter of time to do so."

Congressman Dick Gephardt, then Democratic candidate for president:
"There is long, consistent, clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And I'm still convinced that we are going to find them."

Donald Rumsfeld, May 29, 2003:
"I can assure you that this war was not waged under any false pretext."

Vice President Cheney (NPR, Jan. 22, 2004, the day before Dr. Kay resigned) is asked if the U.S. government has given up on finding Iraqi WMDs. Cheney answers:
"No, we haven't."

Actual Weapons? They Aren't The Issue!
Within a month of the war, the U.S. government realized that there were no stockpiles of war ready weapons. So they kept insisting that the ongoing searches would justify the war--but suddenly were the U.S. war makers were "moving the goal posts." They weren't talking about weapons anymore--but programs, documents or whatever.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, May 16, 2003:
"We are flooding Iraq with inspectors who will look in every place that one can look in to find documents and to get evidence of their programs of weapons of mass destruction. And we're quite sure we'll find it."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (from New York Times , May 3, 2003):
Iraq may only have " chemical precursors " of " a just-in-time inventory, a just-in-time assembly" process for potential chemical weapons.

International Herald Tribune , June 9, 2003:
"The latest vogue in Washington is the proposition that it really doesn't matter whether Saddam Hussein maintained an arsenal of unconventional weapons in recent years."

Senator John McCain, (from New York Times , June 4, 2003):
"The American people support what the president did whether we find those weapons or not."

George Bush, State of the Union speech, January 2004:
"We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." After this speech, the world wondered out loud about Bush's Orwellian use of the concept "weapons-related program activity." What exactly is that?

Now President Bush argues the legal justification for war was not WMDs anyway (from New York Times , Jan. 30, 2004):
"On Tuesday Mr. Bush declared that the war was justified--under U.N. Resolution 1441, no less--because Saddam `did not let us in.' "




Saturday, January 31, 2004

Drunk on Power?

Bush may not technically be a deserter, but he's probably a "Dry Drunk".

Maybe he should be served another DUI -- for Driving the U.S. into Isolation. After all, what bigger rush could there be than being able to drive the world's biggest military machine to war?

The problem is, once an addict has done something that gets his adrenaline going, he wants to do it again and again.

Craig Nakken, The Addictive Personality:

"Raw power as seen in the eyes of the power-centered person carries with it the right to define what is meaningful and what rules will be followed, as well as the right to gain more power, even at the expense of others. ... For power-centered people, power in the form of control becomes the main goal. The more control they have the more their self-confidence seems to grow. ... Like pleasure seekers, power seekers work hard to feel good, and, for them, the best way to maintain that feel-good feeling is by proving themselves "right" by whatever means possible. ... They think it's okay to reach their goals by resorting to secrecy and exclusivity, and to playing one group against another. Often they believe the end justifies the means -- power at all costs."

But.

"If the by-product of a pleasure-centered life is grief, then the by-product of a power-centered life is fear. Dedication to power produces a narcissistic and paranoid lifestyle that attempts to avoid anxiety and fear by maintaining and increasing its power base whenever possible."

Lesson: Don't press the president's buttons, or he might press THE button.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

"Get out of here."

In the middle of winter it's nice to go somewhere warm. But if you can't, then a good travel novel ain't half bad. And it's a lot cheaper, without the fleas or giardia.

And for those of you who've already had kids, are in deep mid-career, or otherwise settled down there's little chance you'll take six months off to backpack the Southern Cone, or will ever be found fucking a stranger at one of those all-night beach raves in Thailand, walking through the Forum tripping, or walking around the canals of Amsterdam so stoned that you forgot exactly where your hotel was. But if you wanna remember what it's like to do any of this, or learn more about taking Ex at Burning Man, then I suggest you read Geoff Dyer’s Yoga for People Who Can’t be Bothered to Do It. It's one of the most entertaining travel books I’ve read since The Songlines. And bound to be a hippie backpacker classic.

Another in the travel novel genre is Michel Houellebecq's Platform. This is a great post-9/11 novel that's about the clash of civilizations without being a grand historical novel (pre-9/11, I suppose the best would be The Sheltering Sky or some other book by Bowles). The protagonist is a French sex tourist who goes to Thailand to get what he wants and finds more -- falls in love with a woman who works for the company that organized his tour. He convinces her and a colleague to try openly marketing sex tours to the Third World, selling them on his theory that Westerners have lost touch with their own sexuality and that therefore the idea would take off as a popular form of therapy.

Finally, for armchair browsing about what it would be like to go to a war zone and other parts of the dark side, try The World's Most Dangerous Places. If he was any more of a mercenary rather than an adverturist, I'd imagine this guy advertising in the back of Soldier of Fortune and titling his next book The Conquest is Cool, but luckily he's not over-the-top in that kind of Ugly American kind of way and if he's been to half the hellish (5 star) places he writes about here then I guess he's in his rights to be dishing out survival tips.

Monday, January 19, 2004

Thoughts on MLK Day:

"Everybody passionately seeks to be well-adjusted. We must, of course, be well-adjusted if we are to avoid neurotic and schizophrenic personalities, but there are some things in our world to which men of goodwill must be maladjusted. I confess that I never intend to become adjusted to the evils of segregation and the cripping effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and to the insanities of militariism and the self-defeating effects of physical violation."

"Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position which stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything and so popular that it will include everybody. ... Not a few men, who cherish lofty and noble ideals, hide them under a bushel for fear of being called different."

"If Americans permit thought-control, business-control, and freedom-control to continue, we shall surely move within the shadows of fascism."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., whose holiday we celebrate today.

P.S. If you haven't read his speech at Riverside Church in a while, it's worth checking out.

Sunday, January 18, 2004


The End of Politics:
Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere
(Guilford, 2000)
by Carl Boggs

Masters of War:
Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire
(Routledge, 2003)
Edited by Carl Boggs

"The broadest measure of a depoliticized society ... is the overall decline of civic consciousness. A civic culture (understood in the broadest sense) requires extensive processes of interaction in the public sphere, a sense of community, general citizen access to decision making, and social obligation, but historical trends in the United States have worked inexorably against such a culture. In its place has emerged a phenomenon quite different, an ethos of extreme individualism, consumerism, and parochialism that devalues not only politics but any form of civic involvement."

When I first read The End of Politics in 2001, I found it to be the most eloquent assessment of one of the most obvious systemic dilemmas we currently face in American politics: a popular detestation of politics. I've since been surprised by how few of my friends and colleagues (generally more politically active and astute than the average) have read this tremendous book. That only proves Boggs' point.

Still, if I were to recommend one book to people about how to understand the general political culture in America (not the culture of those who are political professionals, but of this country as a whole), this would be a strong contender.

Boggs writes in the tradition of the best of American political sociology. Like C. Wright Mills, he strives for an accessible and convincing synthesis. And it is his ability to write clearly and engagingly throughout this rigorous and far-ranging assessment of the depoliticization of American culture and its sources in corporate power that makes Boggs' book much stronger, for instance, than Bowling Alone, the bestseller that makes some of the same points.

The sources of this detachment appear almost irreversible. They include the marketing of consumer-based values, the location of solutions to common problems in personal habits instead of systemic design (hence the rise of self-help "movements" and the location of answers to the ecological crisis in consumer choice instead of a collective push to democratize fundamental technological decision-making -- considered the inviolable prerogative of corporate managers), the spread of technologies like computers (blogging can isolate people in their own cynicism as much as Meetup style organizing on the Internet can quickly connect them) and the general corrosion of civic values and political thinking.

Our deep detachment from politics has resulted in the fetishization of individual personalities as a substitute for candidacies that bring an analysis accountable in any significant way to a movement-building process; private forms of alienation (drugs, alcohol, and their obverse in self-centered recovery programs); "vague planetary (or interplanetary) conspiracies," and spontaneous outbursts of collective action (e.g. Seattle) that have the potential to be misinterpreted as evidence of mature developments in movement-building. [Allow me to pause here and explain: although Seattle catalyzed some of that "Teamsters and Turtles" optimism and a convergence of different movements against a common target -- a rare phenomenon for the U.S. Left -- it's also true that the "summit-hopping" since then, particularly among Americans who apart from the World Bank bonds boycott have made little little permanent connection between the World Bank/IMF protests and mainstream culture ("IMF riots" have been going on in countries like Indonesia and Argentina for decades) though the protests were a huge leap forward, and it would be a mistake to read the catharsis of such mass-protests as a sign of mature movement-building -- though there is much potential for global synergies). As long as most people see mainstream political activism as corrupt and futile, rather than as a viable means of collective action (how much has voter participation increased since Seattle?), they will cede most everday important decisions to corporate interests, and protests like Seattle will be a momentary surge. That's largely because the central issue in the Seattle WTO protest is rarely so centrally addressed: corporate power.]

Indeed, "nothing has undermined the public sector or eviscerated political discourse more than [the] process of corporate colonization," Boggs writes. "The issue of corporate power, manifest today in every area of social life, has never been placed on the public agenda, owing not only to the vast power of corporations but surely also to the profound cynicism among so many people convinced that the political game is rigged in favor of the dominant interests."

Corporations foster a mood of antipolitics by dominating the two major parties through the vast machinery of campaign finance and lobbying, eviscerating their engagement with real issues (by, for example, sanitizing the Presidential debates), controlling the mass media (e.g. keeping popular opinions against war or corporate ownership of the media itself from being aired over the people's own airwaves), and fostering a sense of futility in the face of economic globalization and the rise of remote and unaccountable centers of corporate power, such as the WTO.

Meanwhile, social life is increasingly atomized outside the confines of the corporation (inside, the hierarchies are virtually totalitarian, despite superficial and unconvincing suggestions to the contrary such as Wal-Mart's use of "team member" to describe a low-paid employee).

Of course, the extreme individualism that has resulted from American consumerist culture was always a strand in the country's liberal tradition. But corporate conservatives have stripped it of any connection to an ethos of civic action for the collective good.

In exploring all of this Boggs avoids offering any easy answers, instead adopting a healthy pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will, as suggested by his intellectual mentor the Italian political philosopher Gramsci. It may be true that there may be no easy answers, but I wish Boggs had suggested how a significant challenge to corporate power and the colonization of our politics might take form -- beyond simple platitudes about public funding of elections and other campaign finance reforms.

For example, Jason Mark and Kevin Danaher of Global Exchange suggest some interesting ideas in their new book: Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power. The Multinational Monitor also has explored this issue in a couple of recent issues and other groups like POCLAD and Reclaim Democracy offer a analysis that points to a more fundamental conceptual framework for challenging corporate power.

We can regain a faith in civic action -- the notion of government as a legitimate vehicle for asserting our collective will -- only when we see it as a means of asserting our right as a sovereign people to govern over corporations, which we should view as potentially worse tyrannies than governments. People already see HMOs as a bigger threat than the HHS. And they should. But they want to know what they can do. Poll after poll taken even before Enron revealed people already believe corporations have too much power. The challenge we face is an organizing challenge -- giving that impetus constructive form (the alternative, as Boggs also suggests, is misdirected rage).

There is a serious debate about all this among a growing network of activists, many of whom believe it would be activist malpractice to offer corporate reforms such as changes in internal governance as a serious organizing objective. Shareholder activism has done much to challenge CEO pay and other abuses (I believe that's largely because wealthy outside stockholders' interests are aligned with those of the reformers here). But if we think the political game is rigged, the notion of "shareholder democracy" should be laughable on its face: a Democracy is defined by one-person/one-vote, not by proportional representation based on ownership, which of course is corporate plutocracy. And since corporate laws defined the maximization of shareholder value as the obligation of corporate officers and directors, having proxy access to nominate pension fund reps, unionists, environmentalists, or whoever to a corporate board won't make much difference until the duties and obligations of corporate officers are changed -- because even those directors who wish to do the right thing often can't, a phenomenon described by Ralph Estes as the Tyranny of the Bottom Line. A new initiative that has sprouted in California and Minnesota -- the Code for Corporate Responsibility attempts to address this question of the duties of officers and directors as defined by state corporate laws. Those duties could be redefined to reflect a broader set of interests (including the protection of jobs, the environment, etc.) and redefined in a way that challenges deeply-embedded corporate doctrines that shield ruthless corporate behavior, such as doctrine of limited liability.Other fledgling efforts to challenge corporate power have been moving from theory to action, including California's Corporate 3 Strikes campaign, which would require the state to revoke a company's charter (or business license if they are incorporated out-of-state) for recidivist or criminogenic behavior were also initiated even before Enron.

Meanwhile, POCLAD, CELDF and other groups are educating activits in strategies that would challenge illegitimate corporate claims to Constitutional Rights and the doctrine of corporate personhood (by which courts have conferred the rights of the people to nonliving fictional entities -- show me where corporations are mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights).

All of these efforts point in a direction that suggests possible ways to challenge corporate power in a significant way. None of them have a significant organizing constituency, though interest is growing.

Thus our challenge is politicize our culture in a way that is tied to an effort to reassert our authority over corporations as a collective citizenry. (The fight against the media monopoly -- supported by both the left and right -- may be a hopeful sign of how this new populism could take shape. That fight has yet to figure out a way to use some of these other ideas).

The point is that the legitimacy of a corporation's existence is not merely as a contract between private parties, but as a public institution whose legitimacy is granted by the People, through our government (corporate charters and the process of incorporation are a rote bureaucratic process, but this wasn't always so. In our nation's early history, corporate charters were given a limited life, and had to be renewed by state legislatures, which used to regularly review a company's operations before the charters were renewed. See this piece in Multinational Monitor for more.)

Getting to the point where we demand this kind of thing means a fundamental shift in our understanding. We must view ourselves as citizens rather than consumers -- which is the point of Boggs' book. The colonization of our thinking by corporations is not just measured by the number of brands we can recognize, but by our own alienation from our own government.

After four years, it's easy to see a few things that Boggs got wrong -- largely due to the consequences of unpredictable events like the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Bush administration's response. For example, he groups the neo-conservatives with others -- identity groups, new-agers and the 1960s counterculture (including the New Left) and others who retreated from politics. Now we know better. And few would probably agree today with his Nader-like assertion that "the real ideological gulf separating Republicans and Democrats had narrowed beyond recognition," though that certainly seemed obvious at the end of 8 years of Clinton, who moved the Dems further towards the Republicans than any Democratic president before him (e.g. by keeping the minimum wage down to $5.15 during a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity, passing welfare "reform", escalating the ruthless war on drugs, putting 100,000 more police on the streets, pushing for NAFTA, etc.)

Yet despite the radical nature of Bush's agenda, in the long run Boggs' description of the convergence of the two parties may be more true than we want to believe (accepting this as fact means many intelligent people will further detach from politics, especially if they hold out the hope that the nomination of a Democrat could turn much of this around) -- and will lead to deeper cynicism and despair, as well as more marginal experimentation on the fringes, at least for some time, until such efforts can connect with mainstream America.

Unfortunately, it will be hard to discuss these questions until after the election. The hijacking of the Republican party by the neocons and the possible rise of a non-DLC candidate like Dean, along with new forms of organizing like MoveOn.org has made the 2004 choice between the two parties potentially the most significant in a generation, and there are signs of a significant lift in new voter participation (though it's hard to imagine Move On is activating a large percentage of people that didn't vote before). The palpable fear of the consequences of another four years of Bush will probably activate many Democrats and liberals who have been pretty apolitical in the past, but the organizing ability of the Right should also not be underestimated (in terms of mobilizing their own base).

Underneath all this, the same political currents are continuously flowing:

"The erosion of civic values is no momentary phase but is rather the product of deep material and cultural forces at work since at least the 1950s. Vital elements of the political enterprise -- participation, community, governance -- have been distorted or obliterated bypostwar depoliticizing trends."

Which makes me want to suggest (heresy?) that this political season's battles may be less important than we'd like to believe, unless we're ready to begin to analyze those currents and address them. Perhaps we could close the gap by using a Dean (or whoever) victory as an opening, or, in the nightmarish event that Bush wins, building a more fundamental resistance from the ground up that can do more than put up modest speedbumps against Bush's next imperial adventure and ruthless domestic policies.

The point is that, apart from minor flaws in his argument discussed above (and below), after 4 years much of Boggs' analysis seems as apt and urgent as ever; sometimes it seems downright prescient. For example, at one point he contrasts a political culture that pays more attention to the president's sexual pecadillos with deep regulatory reforms that no one seems to be paying attention to, such as energy deregulation, which is certain to have much greater consequence for the majority of Americans (this was written before Enron, the California crisis, last summer's blackouts, the Cheney task force and the debacle known as the Energy bill, which has a clause that would further deregulate the industry by totally gutting the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, the New Deal era-law that kept companies from jeopardizing essential services through speculation in unrelated businesses).

The downward spiral of public life cannot be measured simply in terms of passivity and cynicism. As Boggs observes, "there is also the phenonomenon of sustained citizen anger -- an anger that is deep-seated, increasingly overt, sometimes directed against hated or feared "others," most commonly focused on "government" but rarely channeled in the direction of the military-industrial complex or "private" corporations." ... "Strong antigovernment feelings, of course, can be a prelude to mobilization for radical change--but only where such feelings take shape in a milieu of widely shared values of public engagement and collective action."

Which brings up another point: Without general engagement and education around the question of the dangers of unaccountable corporate power, we should be suspicious of the direction that rapidly-developing mass movements can take.

In 2000 Boggs wrote, "striking parallels between the present-day American extreme Right and European fascism of the 1920s and 1930s clearly exist and deserve further analysis." But he dismisses the possibility of fascist totalitarianism taking over the U.S. government. Yet I wonder, if Boggs was given a chance to rewrite this book now -- after 9/11 and resulting mass psychological fear, the emergence of the neocon cabal, Iraq and other signs like Nuremberg-style rallies sponsored by Clear Channel (and all the other stuff Harvey Wasserman wrote in his book) -- would he have made a stronger case for the potential for an emerging American fascism?

Perhaps he would agree with Sheldon Wolin that we live in a kind of "inverted totalitarianism" (Wolin: "while the current sysem and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism [but] their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the "streets" were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive -- while the real danger lies with an increasinly unbridled government.")

In 2000, however, Boggs' skepticism was based upon his identification of the potential for American fascism in fringe groups like the scattered militias, cults and fundamenlists -- groups that are "undoubtedly a long way from seizing state power. ... There is probably no Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco on the horizon. Yet the ideological affinity of such groups with earlier incarnations of fascism and neofascism, along with certain undeniable similarities in the historical context, cannot be overlooked."

There may not be any charismatic dictator in the wings, or any threat that these militia-like groups will ever come into power, politically, but does it make any difference if, instead, they align themselves with other right political movements like the neoconservatives. It's easy to imagine them functioning in a manner similar way as the brownshirts -- as a radical base that the right can call upon to intimidate dissent, especially if their energy is fed by escalating economic despair and their consequent rage is directed at "liberals" who don't support the country's war on terrorism. As Boggs puts it:

"The fascist party-state set out to either destroy or incorporate autonomous groups and subcultures, albeit with mixed results. The state assumed primacy ... in most cases (Italy, Germany, Spain) the party actually wound up subordinated to the state system. As Mussolini once stated: "Everything for the state, nothing against the state, no one outside the state. Although such monolithic rule always remained outside the grasp, and probably the intentions, of fascist regimes, Mussolini's dictat nonetheless reflects the essence of fascist ideology. The very genius of fascist leadership in Europe resided in its capacity to forge a coherent social bloc of forces among widely dispersed and often conflicting groups..." When two parties converge into one government dominated by the military-industrial complex how far can it be from moving towards becoming this kind of system, especially if hijacked by an ideological cabal?

Another reason Boggs was skeptical that fascism could happen here is that "present-day reactionary populist groups lack a coherent, future-directed ideology that could give political shape to their vast assortment of antistatist beliefs and irrational fantasies."

Again, I'm not sure that matters, so long as the right has people like Ralph Reed or Grover Norquist (described by Bob Dreyfuss as the "Field Marshall of the Bush Plan") who has a multi-decade ideological plan to use the anti-political sentiments of most Americans to push a plutocratic economic agenda.

Grover is building a grassroots base ("little me's") state-by-state. In a recent Washington Post article("Sewing the Seeds of GOP Domination," 1/12/04), he said his group (the supposedly "center-right" Americans For Tax Reform, which has pushed the paradoxical anti-big-government line for tax cuts for the rich, never talking about the military, which is far and away the fastest-growing part of the budget) had to shut down one of its "mini-Grover" state coalition meetings in New Mexico, after the "black helicopter crowd" took it over. A sign of what I mean -- Norquist and other political operatives are creating legitimate political space for dangerous right-wing political movements.

Boggs' last reason to be skeptical that fascism could happen here reads like a dire omen to this pessimist: "Finally, fascist movements and parties were able to seize state power in Europe because large sectors of the power structure -- the aristocracy, the Catholic Church, big business, the military -- swung over to the fascist side at decisive moments. ... In the United States today, however, there are few signs of such a critical alignment: corporations, Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the bulk of the political estalishment are all lined up resolutely against the extreme Right, particularly where destabilizing forms of insurgency or domestic terrorism enter the picture."

So much has happened since 9/11, hasn't it? Many foreign policy establishment figures voiced opposition to the Iraq war once it was announced, including Admiral Zinni, Schwarzkopf (remember the article that came out the morning of last year's State-of-the-Union speech, where he criticized the proposal to go to war? Then he was the first responder on TV, suggesting how great Bush's speech was. A Rove set-up? Or did they manage to turn him that quickly?) and many other members of the intelligence and foreign policy establishment. Yet we live in a time when even the inertia of a foreign policy establishment reluctant to go to war for unwarranted reasons can succumb to an atmosphere of fear, party discipline and reprisal, especially if popular sentiments are pushed along by right-wing propaganda such as Clear Channel radio, and the Democratic party is so compromised that it can rarely pull together long enough to take a stand before the ground shifts (why did it take an ex-Klan member to make the most eloquent case against war on the floor of the Senate? Where was Kerry?). It's hard to stop something like war once the gears are set in motion. Yes, it could easily happen here -- and the conditions for it to happen may already be in place.

But Boggs makes a good point: it isn't coming in the same form, so that if we can be critical of people like Christopher Hitchens for calling stateless terrorist networks like al Qaeda "fascistic," so could using the F-word be an imprecise term for what's happening here:

"Surely corporate colonization in the early twenty-first century America will depend far more on the workings of ideological hegemony than on the tools of institutional coercion or terror. If the "new world order" means anything, it refers to an administered system in which popular consciousness is shaped and contained by the media spectacle, the culture industry, the shopping malls, and the charade of democratic politics -- all inducing privatized retreat, depoliticization, and withdrawal from the public sphere, against a backdrop of reinforced state-corporate networks of surveillance and controls. (Fascism, on the other hand, always set out to mobilize the masses, hoping to instill new modes of active participation- however narros these turned out to be.) In such a rationalized, high-tech, globalized universe there seems to be little role for a Mussolini, Hitler or Franco; instead of charismatic passions and adventurous schemes, what the system requires is more the routinized managerial intervention of market-oriented CEOs who reside at places like IBM, Bank of America, Mitsubishi, General Motors, and Walt Disney/ABC. Hence, the menacing incursions of reactionary populist groups in the Unied States represent not so much the harbinger of a coming fascist nighmare as the localized, defensive, antipolitical, and ultimately impotent response to globalizing forces that seem outside the purview of active human control."

All of this would make it interesting to find out how Boggs' thinking has evolved since 2000.

You can find out by reading his new collection of essays about a related topic that suggests how far he believes the situation has evolved: Empire.

In fact, apart from Boggs' Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire there are a number of recent books that pick up on the theme of Empire, including Chalmers Johnson's Sorrows of Empire and Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's Empire has probably stirred up the most debate on the topic, including assertions that the faddish use of the E-word is as unpersuasive and imprecise a description of modern global capitalism as use of the word "globalization" was in recent years. (There are many more books on the American Empire: 267 if you search "U.S. Empire" as Title on Amazon.com; 1467 titles include "globalization." So it will probably be a few years before the intellectual fetish for understanding Empire exhausts itself).

This fetish is shared by writers across the spectrum. On the right, we have Max Boot's pro-imperial editorials in the Wall Street Journal and books like Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order and Zbiegnew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

Any progressive/radical bibliography on the question of American Empire would have to include books such as William Blum's Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Sidney Lens' The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam, a History of U.S. Imperialism, both which were recently reissued. Also Larry Everest's Oil, Power and Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda and Peter Gowan's The Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Dominance (Verso).

Regardless of one's views, unchallenged American global dominance in military, political and (to a lesser extent) economic arenas is a certainty, and even if "Empire" conjures up difficult-to-swallow notions of legions of soldiers conquering distant lands (Johnson points out that we have over 700 mmilitary bases on foreign soil) there is certainly some truth in framing an understanding of U.S. politics around this question, particularly if we are willing to engage the question as a complex one. E.g. It would also be a mistake to understand the concept of American Empire as simply a military-industrial agenda completed by force. Much of what is understood to be the central process of globalization could also be considered to be part of the process of Empire. E.g., as Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance explores, U.S. foreign policy has worked through surrogate institutions and in partnership with capitalist allies -- hence -- a view of the history of financial diplomacy that formed, sustained and used the Bretton Woods triad (World Bank-IMF-GATT/WTO) as an instrument of global imperialism.

Boggs' book -- which includes essay by Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky -- attempts to grapple with some of the more obvious variables involved with this question of Empire. As a collection of different essays by a variety of writers, it pulls the evidence together from different directions. The chapters on the evolution of the domination of space (where the technology has evolved from observatory spy satellites to being part of an aggressively-postured, integrated global battlefield), oil wars, "The Geopolitics of Plan Columbia" (James Petras), the role of media in wartime (Norman Solomon) and the depoliticization of the public sphere (Boggs, again) present important evidence of the direction we're headed, even if they are only part of a grim picture.

N.B.:
In Masters of War, he has this to say about Wesley Clark, referring to the 1999 war in Yugoslavia: "NATO Commander Wesley Clark boasted that te aim of the war was to "demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure" of Yugoslavia. As Takis ftopoulos has persuasively argued, the NATO destruction of Servia can best be understood as the first war systematically waged in defense of the global market system, a "war" involving few if any casualties for the perpetrators. Do you want a guy like that heading a country that has developed an aggressive and preemptive military posture not just through Bush's most recent National Security Doctrine, but by the inherent nature of the technologies it is developing? If you're enamored with Clark, as Michael Moore seems to be, check out "Clark's True Colors," the Nation, December 15, 2003)