SOUNDING "OFF" PART 2...

On June 21, I posted a list of mistakes I've heard in songs I love. Just heard another one, in "Hot Burrito #2." So here's the list so far, with my man Larry G.'s contribution from the comments on June 21:

1. Vince Guaraldi-"Linus and Lucy" finger slip on piano keys on return to first section :50
2. Neil Young-"After The Goldrush" finger slip on piano keys after the line "hoping it was a lie" (the first time) 1:46
3. Ozzy Osbourne/Randy Rhoads-"Crazy Train" notes in solo not doubled exactly (after joining back in unison following a harmony section) 3:05
4. Soft Machine-"10.30 Returns To The Bedroom" finger slip on organ 2:07
5. "Deliverance" soundtrack-"Dueling Banjos" 3:03 the guitar starts to go back around while the banjo is doing an ending lick. The guitar abruptly stops when he realizes that's the end of the song. (Larry G)
6. Flying Burrito Brothers-"Hot Burrito #2" finger slip on piano 0:47...lyrics on top are "And you want me home all night..." Dig the horn-like steel going on in that section..

Also, I listend to the Bad Religion tune "Let Them Eat War" about 30 times in a row last night...I love that song!

JENA 6, SYNCHRONICITY, & THE SUPREME COURT

I just head about the Jena 6 today, on Democracy Now--I gotta say, not that it's news to anyone, but Amy Goodman kicks ass.

I got to reading about the case, and it occurred to me that on the same day Mychal Bell of the so-called "Jena 6" was convicted by an all-white jury (is this 2007 or 1957?) presided over by a white judge who would not give the jury a written copy of the charges and no witnesses were called on Bell's behalf, the Supreme Court basically endorsed segregation in the Seattle school case. Those events happened on June 28--what synchronicity!

Who says racism isn't alive and well in America in the "new" millenium?

HOMELAND INSECURITY

Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the Homeland Security committee in the House, gave what for to Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" about a heightened possibility of "terror attacks":

"What color code in the Homeland Security Advisory System is associated with a 'gut feeling?' What sectors should be on alert as a result of your “gut feeling? Over the past five years, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been dedicated to standing up and building capacity at the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security is charged with deterring, preventing and responding to the threat of terrorism.

To that end, systems have been erected to identify risks and communicate them to the American public. With all the resources you have at your disposal and all the progress that you assure us that you are making, I cannot understand why you are quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying you have a 'gut feeling' that we are entering a period of heightened risk this summer."

I wish Thompson was my representative...

Speaking of "insecurity"...



















Saw this on my way home from Jackson out on Highway 49 yesterday--four mobile camera outfits (click the picture for a much larger version). I'd never seen these things before, but the "SURVEILLANCE" splashed on the side kind of caught my eye...here's some text from this company's website:

CPS provides customized security answers for a variety of issues including risk management, loss prevention, industrial safety, vandalism, background screening, event super vision, liability claims, employee performance, emergency planning, fire prevention, and overall system consultation.

I don't know about you, but in a day and age where people write letters to the editor proclaiming unironically that freedom is slavery, the Homeland Security director's gut tells him what to do, and so forth, it makes me kinda queasy to see four giant mobile "SURVEILLANCE" cameras rockin' down the highway, headed the same way as me...

"FREEDOM...IS...SLAVERY"--this guy really said it...

Here's a letter that appeared in the local paper today:

Free people must practice restraint

I do not believe in an "Allah" who creates a medical cell of Muslim doctors and associates to kill people in London and Glasgow.

Nor do I believe in an immoral democratic lifestyle which ignores biblical teachings and rebels against a life of holiness under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Freedom and liberty to practice a sinful life is the worst kind of slavery, in that it destroys and condemns our body and our soul to a godless eternity.

God created Earth, heavens, life and he does not want it to be wasted or destroyed.

Billy R. Mathis

Hattiesburg

Mathis actually says that "freedom...is...slavery." Who the hell knows what his definition of "a sinful life" is--I would bet being a liberal, a non-Christian, a free-thinker, an antiwar activist, a civil liberties advocate, or any combination of those would fit Mathis' definition.

The thing is, Mathis equates freedom and slavery without irony or any seeming knowing wink to "1984" or anything. This is beyond scary...

IF KELLY CLARKSON CAN'T SELL OUT A TOUR...

...who can? I have never heard a Kelly Clarkson song in its entirety and do not care one whit about her career or her music, but when I see that someone with her popularity (two Grammys, multiplatinum album, etc.) can't 1) draw people to a free, televised show in New York or 2) sell enough tickets to justify a tour, I am simultaneously heartened and brought low.

I'm heartened because I realize that hey, nobody's coming to see my band, but no one's going to see one of the most popular acts in recent memory either. I'm brought low by it because it's further evidence that there's very little to no money in the music biz, no matter how popular or well-known you are or once were.

This reminds me of the new band The Soul of John Black, who I am told is only asking for a $300 guarantee. This is despite the fact that the band's founding member was a guitarist for Fishbone and wrote a song that Miles Davis covered on one of his last albums ("Jilli" from the album "Amandla").
If that guy feels like all he can ask for is $300 and he's done all that, there's no way my band's gonna be able to justify asking for even $50 to do a tour. And that's why we're not doing one...and never have. And never will...

LIBBY WON'T HAVE TO "COMMUTE" TO JAIL

My take (short version): this de facto pardon is only happening so Libby wouldn't start to get sick of prison and start making deals and ratting out his superiors...

Long version follows...


So, not a pardon, but a commutation...hmmm, what's that word mean, exactly? Here's definition #2 at dictionary.com:

the changing of a prison sentence or other penalty to another less severe.

Yep, that sums it up. And it came on the same day that it was decided that Libby was most definitely going to have to go jail.

Just so everyone will know, neither of the words that Bush used to describe his actions--"clemency" and "commute"--appear in the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if Scalia is comfortable with that, given his "strict constructionism" and "originalism." Also, Bush knows that everyone knows what a "pardon" is--that's why he didn't use that word, even though it is in the Constitution. He knows that the rubes don't know or care what clemency and commutation are, so he's inoculating himself against attacks from the right that he's soft on crime.

There seems to be a lot of inexplicable liberal/progressive passivity about, even approval of this commutation. Here's an example at Slate, from a column entitled "Why Bush Was Right To Spare Libby":

"What Bush did [commuting Libby's sentence]was just and fair. It was the right thing to do...

But Judge Reggie Walton went overboard in sentencing Libby to 30 months.

This was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court's probation office, and if Libby hadn't been a high-ranking government official, there's a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment."

This argument is complete crap. Like we're supposed to feel sorry for Libby because he was a high-ranking government official. Well Tim, you dumbass, that's exactly the reason he should receive a more severe sentence--he's supposed to be working for us, not giving out state secrets and then lying about it. He should know better...

Not only that, but Libby wouldn't even have been in the position to do what he did if he hadn't been a high-ranking government official. The circumstances surrounding what Libby did required him to be a high-ranking government official, so how is the fact that he was one then an argument for leniency?

Noah's argument above is just more of that power-hungry, you-scratch-my-balls-and-I'll-scratch-yours "coverage" of goings-on in Washington. It's a prime example of that ass-kissing, suck-up-to-power-in-exchange-for-access mentality that plagues our press.

Why not commute Genarlow Wilson's sentence?

If there was ever a good argument for a commutation, Bush should either pardon or commute Genarlow Wilson's sentence. For those unfamiliar with the circumstances, here's a good recap from Wikipedia:

"...[Wilson's]conviction was based on an amateur video tape showing Wilson [then seventeen] engaging in sex with a 17-year-old girl during a private party, and later receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl.

A jury acquitted Wilson of raping the older girl, but convicted him of aggravated child molestation against the 15-year-old. The "aggravated" nature of the charge refers to fellatio (oral sex) rather than a mere "immoral or indecent act." Had the two teenagers had intercourse without oral sex, Wilson would have been charged with a misdemeanor, punishable up to 12-months, with no sex offender status, instead of the 10-year minimum term that the judge gave him.

The 15 year old girl, who has remained unnamed in the press as a 'victim of a sex offense', has repeatedly stated that the act of oral sex was consensual, though she legally could not consent. The jury acquitted Wilson of the rape charge, but as the age of consent in Georgia is 16, they voted to convict him of aggravated child molestation for the oral sex incident, with the forewoman tearfully reading the verdict. Some jury members later complained they had not understood the verdict would result in a 10 year minimum sentence, plus one year on probation."

Got that? Wilson's act was consensual, and had he actually gone ahead and put his penis in her vagina, he would've only been guilty of a misdemeanor and had to serve only a year or less in jail. As it is, Wilson is considered a child molestor and has now been in jail for 2 1/2 years.

Oh, and it gets better. Because of all the negative publicity surrounding the Wilson case, they changed the law in Georgia so that what Wilson did would now be only a misdemeanor. But they didn't make the law apply retroactively, so Wilson's still in jail.

A judge said last month that Genarlow should be released, pointing out the following:

“If this court, or any court, cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish…Justice being served in a fair and equal manner.”

But Georgia's attorney general filed for an appeal of that decision, meaning that the case must now be decided by the state supreme court. And so Genarlow Wilson sits in jail, for 29 months--a month shy of what Scooter's jail time would have been.

I'll tell you why Bush won't commute Genarlow's sentence

Three reasons:

1. Wilson is black
2. His case is about sex
3. He doesn't have any inside information on the Bush administration that could get them all sent to jail

WAINWRIGHT: THE LAW IS ABOUT TO SPEAK!

The Hattiesburg American tells us that "Details of USM student's arrest may be divulged." They changed their headline from earlier in the day, which read "Police may divulge details of arrest."

Bob Hopkins, the chief of University police, has always held his tongue about what Wainwright wrote that was so "threatening." Now it looks like it's time to put up or shut up--the stuff is coming back from the crime lab. Here's the heart of the story:

In the two months since Wainwright was arrested, investigators haven't released details about the threats, allegedly made through www.MySpace.com, a popular networking site that allows users to communicate through e-mail, blog posts, instant messages and bulletins.

Nor has Weathers' office received a case file from investigators.

"The person that's working it is off this week, but I was assured I would have it Monday or Tuesday," he said.

Southern Miss Police Chief Bob Hopkins said last month that his office was awaiting results of forensic testing from the state crime lab before turning the case over to Weathers' office.

Of course, the "student" is Yuri Wainwright, currently being held in Lamar County jail on $1 million bond for "posting threats over the Internet." I noticed that this and most other Wainwright-related stories say that what he's charged with carries a sentence of between 5-20 years. I don't know where they're getting that sentence from. Here is what I wrote about the situation on the ol' forum today...

Post 1

According to the MS Code, "Posting of messages through electronic media for purpose of causing injury to any person," the vague statute Wainwright was charged with violating, doesn't carry a sentence of 5-20 years. Here is a quote from the code:

"A person who violates this section, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years or a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both."

So he may have already served his time. We know from the UPD website what statute he was charged with, but that entry has rotated out of the entries on the UPD crimelog website. Also, a Hattiesburg American story about Wainwright that was at this link
has now disappeared.

They've got 7 months now to bring a case against Wainwright. If Yuri did do what they say he did, then it's good they caught him before he did anything to anyone.

However, Bob Hopkins has repeatedly maintained that the messages that got Wainwright in trouble were written and posted before the Virginia Tech shootings. He's never said how long before the VT shootings these were posted. We do know that they waited until two days after VT and two days before the Columbine anniversary to arrest Wainwright.

The VT massacre happened on Monday, April 16. Yuri logged into his MySpace page for the last time on April 17. So there were two days between VT and Yuri's arrest--theoretically two days in which Wainwright could have carried out his theoretical threats. Glad they acted fast!

I can't wait to read what Wainwright supposedly wrote. We should have known a long time before now what he said that was so bad that he's been held for over two months on $1 million bond.

Again, if he really did make specific threats, then I'm glad they got him. If he didn't--and I suspect that this is the case--they've really done our justice system a disservice.

Post 2

I'm not sure where the possible sentence of 5-20 years for posting threats on the Internet is coming from. It's mentioned in many articles about the Wainwright case, including this most recent one.

Neither the law I mentioned above or the "cyberstalking" statute--97-45-15 of the MS Code--have a penalty of up to 20 years. In fact, all the sentences are 5 years or less. Perhaps there's a change in the law that has happened very recently and the websites have not yet been changed to reflect it.

When one Googles "internet threats mississippi code," one is taken here.

When one goes to the "Chapter Index" at the bottom of the page, one finds a list of all the sections of chapter 045 of title 97:

A quick look through them reveals that none of them mentions a possible penalty of over five years.

The only statute that even mentions "threatening" is 97-45-15, which is not what Wainwright was charged with. In the definitions (97-45-1), "Credible threat" is defined thusly:

"a threat made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety."

What they have to prove

Which means that they'll have to prove Wainwright's intent, which is not easy to do, especially given the cryptic, disjointed nature of the writing of his I've seen. The "apparent ability to carry out the threat" is obviously easy to prove, which is why they keep bringing up the guns found at the place Wainwright was living.

And I guess that the target of the supposed threat could be proven to have feared for his or her safety since Wainwright was obviously turned in by somebody. Actually, though, the process by which Wainwright's "threats" were discovered has not been discussed much in the press.

We are told that "university police were notified by a faculty member that Wainwright had posted disturbing messages and emails on the popular website."

We don't know if the professor that turned him in was the target or if someone else was. It's entirely conceivable that the target of the "threat" was completely unaware of a "threat" and therefore could not have feared for his/her safety.

WHEN YOU RULE OUT IMPEACHMENT, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET...


The idiot and the vampire (i.e., Bush and Cheney) are slowly, quietly, casually setting themselves up with dictatorial powers. The latest evidence of this is Cheney's bizarre, unfounded assertion that the vice president's office is not "an entity within the executive branch."

We are one hurricane or domestic "terror attack" away from totalitarianism.

"New revelations that Cheney and Bush have openly declared themselves to be have total power and the ability to bypass law and oversight should be a code red emergency. They are moving to implement everything necessary for a total takeover should a catalyst event provide the opportunity. Given that this administration has a history of cooking up its own catalysts we should be very wary indeed."

Another reason Kucinich is a badass...and why the MSM marginalizes him

Kucinich has actually introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney. No other presidential candidate, senator, or congressperson has had the cojones to do this. Bush and Cheney must be stopped, yet no one has stepped forward to help Kucinich advance this very necessary step against the idiot and the vampire (or in this case, just the vampire).

Big liberal blogs like Daily Kos and Americablog have already gone on record saying they don't support impeachment. They are still laboring under the delusion that our government is still "ours." That is to say, they think that all the Democrats have to do is demonstrate to the public that their policies are better for the country, and consequently, they'll win elections.

Even if that were true, there is still no excuse for not bringing impeachment proceedings against the idiot and the vampire...

THE "DISADVANTAGED MINORITY" ROSEMARY BARBOUR...I MEAN, RAMIREZ...IS NEITHER

So my local paper has been following a story on the FBI investigation into Alcatec, a company owned by the wife of one of Haley Barbour's nephews and they had this update today:

"Alcatec began in 2000 as a laundry service for students at the University of Mississippi. In 2004, it was awarded two General Services Administration (GSA) contracts - totaling $675,750 - to provide and maintain washers, dryers and showers at Camp Shelby.

After Hurricane Katrina, Barbour was awarded another set of GSA contracts, worth $6.4 million - much of it no-bid - to take her shower services to the Coast.

Alcatec qualified as a minority-owned firm during the bid process. Barbour, an American citizen and active in Republican politics, was born in Guatemala. She said she used her maiden name, Ramirez, when she made the bids, so that federal officials would not know of her family ties."

Actually, that's not an update, it's the background--but it's brand new to me, as I haven't been following the story at all. I just found that last paragraph oddly interesting--that she would admit using her maiden name instead of her presumably legal name on an application for a federal contract. Isn't that misrepresentation of some sort? Or falsifying documents?

She sure doesn't look like a minority in the one picture I've seen of her.




















And for a poor, humble Guatemalan girl, she was able to afford some pretty top-notch schooling--she graduated from Westover, a private girl's school in Connecticut, and then from Goucher, a private college in Maryland. Seems to me she wanted to (and did) pass for mestizo when she is more likely a peninsular or criollo...I mean, sometimes being rich and well-connected just isn't enough to get the contract...

Although this New York Times story makes note of how well Mrs. Barbour/Ramirez/Barbour's? company was doing with the federal contracts after Katrina:

"PASS CHRISTIAN, Miss., Dec. 6 - Rosemary Barbour happens to be married to a nephew of Mississippi's governor, Haley Barbour. Since the Reagan administration, when Mrs. Barbour worked as a White House volunteer as a college student, she has been active in the Republican Party.

She also happens to be one of the biggest Mississippi-based winners of federal contracts for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.

To some contract watchdogs, this could be an example of how the federal government responsibly reached out to give a piece of the billions of dollars in federal hurricane-recovery work to a small Mississippi-based company owned by a Latina. Mrs. Barbour, 39, who was born in Guatemala but now lives in Jackson, Miss., is certified by the United States Small Business Administration as a disadvantaged small-business owner."

Say what?! When a "disadvantaged minority" is neither

How can a graduate of Westover and Goucher who worked in the Bush 41 administration and married into a powerful political family at age 24 be legitimately certified as "disadvantaged?" Even if she was born in Guatemala?

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that her story about using her maiden name might be just that--a story, to try to throw us rubes off the nepotism/cronyism trail. I'm sure she probably is registered with the SBA as a disadvantaged minority and actually did fill out the paperwork with her maiden name, but that's likely only because one of Haley's or her own old Washington buddies or friends of friends helped her cook up that cover story...when they found out that she was born in Guatemala and her maiden name is Ramirez, a Latina/minority/disadvantaged-sounding name if there ever was one...

But this seems like an abuse of "disadvantaged minority" status by both Barbour/Ramirez and the SBA. Because the "disadvantaged minority" Rosemary Barbour is neither...

DOES THAT SOUND "OFF" TO YOU?

I probably shouldn't post this stuff, but I can't really resist. As a musician, I'm very picky whenever I listen to a recording I've made. I cringe whenever I hear the slightest hesitation between beats or something else that's "off" somehow.

This is due in no small part to the impression that I've accepted, or created, or had created for me, that "the pros" and/or "the legends" don't make "mistakes" in their recordings. So I have to admit that I get some gratification out of spotting the little things that are "off" in classic recordings. And I was reminded of that yesterday when I was listening to Vince Guaraldi's classic "Linus and Lucy"--a classic tune and a great performance.

I'd heard the little finger slip before, but never thought to post anything about it. But I'd also heard a little finger slip a month or two ago in Neil Young's "After The Goldrush" that I'd never, ever noticed before. So I thought it'd just be fun--and make all of us amateur (and probably professional) musicians feel a little better about ourselves--to compile a list of well-known artists leaving something in a recording that they, like I sometimes do, hope no one ever notices.

Because hey, at some point you gotta say "It's good enough" and move on. You can never achieve perfection and why would you want to?

Here's what I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Vince Guaraldi-"Linus and Lucy" finger slip on piano keys on return to first section :50
2. Neil Young-"After The Goldrush" finger slip on piano keys after the line "hoping it was a lie" (the first time) 1:46
3. Ozzy Osbourne/Randy Rhoads-"Crazy Train" notes in solo not doubled exactly (after joining back in unison following a harmony section) 3:05
4. Soft Machine-"10.30 Returns To The Bedroom" finger slip on organ 2:07 (this was not off the top of my head--I heard this while I was looking for CD/mp3s of the songs mentioned above and was listening to the song while flipping through CD books and searching the computer) If there was a ever a reason to listen to Soft Machine, that sweet distorted organ is it...that might sound sarcastic, but I'm being serious...I love the Soft Machine organ stuff...

Please feel free to add any others in the comments or email me at leftbehindchild@gmail.com and I'll update the list as I get entries.

LIEBERMAN ON IRAN: THERE AREN'T ENOUGH U.S. CASUALTIES IN IRAQ, SO LET'S DO IRAN

Not an exact quote, obviously...

Lieberman won't hear of pulling out of Iraq despite mounting casualties--over 3,500 dead and 10,000+ wounded. To him, that means we're making "significant progress." At any rate, to the warmongers, the current casualty rate in no way constitutes an argument for stopping the war. In fact, the more casualties we inflict and receive, the longer we need to keep fighting, according to this logic. It's like the "it's only a flesh wound" knight in "The Holy Grail" and we all know what happened to him.

Now Lieberman asserts that Iran may be responsible for the deaths of 200 soldiers and that's why he wants to attack Iran. Rather than suggesting that we move our troops in Iraq out of harm's way so that won't happen anymore, Lieberman wants to send more troops into the meatgrinder. And if and when we do attack Iran and more of our soldiers start dying, that will only be a reason for us to send more to the slaughter, according to Lieberman's logic.

I can't believe Ned Lamont lost to this clown...

ADDENDUM:
I don't think I said exactly what I meant above.

I thought about it more today and what I was trying to say is that Lieberman's logic is so fucked up...because 3,500 dead is not horrific enough for him to want to stop fighting in Iraq, yet 200 dead is so horrific that we have to start another war with Iran in which we'll surely kill more people and have more of our people killed...it makes absolutely no motherfucking sense...it doesn't add up. It's wasteful and sick and murderous, the way this guy has a hard-on for war.

WHY KUCINICH IS A BADASS



Kucinich proved almost 30 years ago that he has the massive balls it takes to stand up to the corporatocratic privatizers that want to create an "ownership society," all right. One in which they're the owners and we have to pay through the nose to get what was rightfully ours to begin with.

I wonder why more parallels weren't drawn between Gray Davis' recall and Kucinich's recall which, like Hugo Chavez, he survived. And again, like Chavez, the corporatocracy put out a hit on Kucinich (see above). But they didn't get him!

Why I'm glad I didn't vote for Lieberman (and Gore) in 2000

Because of this nonsense:

''I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,'' Lieberman said. ''And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.''

Yet Lieberman insists that we're making progress in Iraq, so we have to stay there. What an immoral, warmongering jackass.

GRAVEL AND KUCINICH

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich kick ass. I just read one of my favorite blogs and the proprietor had the following to say:

Dennis Kucinich and Gravel are just annoying. Yeah, I get it, some of you like Kucinich. And that's nice. Joe likes his dog Boomer too. It doesn't mean he should be on stage with the real candidates. Kucinich has zero chance of winning, as does Gravel - they shouldn't be on the stage taking time from the serious candidates.

What the fuck is this guy's problem? Aravosis, I mean. They "shouldn't be on the stage?" They aren't "serious candidates?"

What has Hillary Clinton ever done compared to Mike Gravel? Gravel was in the Army in the 50s. He entered the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. He filibustered against renewal of the draft--by himself--and Nixon was forced to let it die. What has Hillary Clinton ever done that's even remotely comparable to any of that? For that matter, what have Obama or Edwards done that are remotely comparable to any of that?

For Pete's sake, Clinton and Edwards both voted for the Iraq war. Gravel is unequivocally against it and the imperialist/neocon/corporatist agenda that fueled it. Clinton and Edwards now say they don't like the war, but they still favor the imperialist/corporatist agenda.

Kucinich

Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the war in Iraq. He is also against the imperialist/corporatist agenda. For Christ's sake, he's introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

Gravel and Kucinich have more principle, conviction, and good ideas than the rest of the Democratic candidates put together. They are serious candidates, but of course they have no chance of winning if major liberal blogs like Americablog insist on parroting the mainstream, corporate media tactic of following the horse race. What the hell is the liberal blogosphere for if not to promote candidates that actually stand for what we say we want?

IRAN AS AN EXCUSE...

...to find new ways to make enemies out of the whole world...

I'm kind of relieved in a way, now that I realize the Bushies know they're full of shit when they accuse Iran of "meddling" in Iraq, which of course is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black. How do we know this? Because of this story from the AP (so this link will be dead soon):

President Bush is defending plans to set up a missile defense system in Russia's back yard, despite the strain it has put on already-tense U.S.-Russian relations.

The president told a group of foreign reporters that the weapons system is in response to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, and that the missiles will be aimed at Iran, not Russia.

Bush wants to base part of the system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Bush is telling Putin, who correctly refers to this move as imperialism (note that I didn't use quotation marks), to "get over it." Get over it? Really?

Too bad we don't lead by example in "getting over" things. Or I should say, we only "get over" things that we can make money on. Like for example, we've never "gotten over" the fact that Cuba is a communist country, but we've really put China's communism behind us. If Russia put a missile "defense" system in South America somewhere, the right-wing freakos would never "get over it," no matter how many times Russia assured us the missiles weren't aimed at us.

And all this is happening at at time when we need to be reducing our military presence around the world, not increasing it. But I guess the military-industrial complex won't rest until there's a missile aimed at every person on earth, depleted uranium in every river, and unexploded ordnance on every playground. It's an ugly, yet highly profitable, vision of the world.

WAINWRIGHT: What's going on?

Some seemingly conflicting details have been written lately.

For example:

May 26: Hattiesburg American notes that:

"Wainwright was charged with the felony, punishable by five to 20 years' incarceration, at an initial court appearance April 20."

That sounds like an arraignment (which news stories tended to refer to as "a preliminary hearing") to me, which would mean that the 270 days rule mentioned here (from May 27), has already kicked in:

"Under state law, a defendant must be tried within 270 days of his arraignment. If not, a defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the charges."

However, a story from WLBT in Jackson on May 27 notes that there is "no hurry" to indict Wainwright.

Arraignment & Indictment already happened?

If Wainwright has already been charged with posting threats on the Internet (the law under which he was charged is quite vague and perhaps purposely so: "Posting of Messages through Electronic Media for Purpose of Causing Injury to Any Person"), isn't that an "arraignment?" And according to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (quoted in Wikipedia):

"...arraignment shall...[consist of an] open...reading [of] the indictment...to the defendant...and calling on him to plead thereto. He shall be given a copy of the indictment...before he is called upon to plead."

It seems to me then that Wainwright has already been indicted on April 20, despite claims of the DA to the contrary (HA, May 26--"Weathers said the law doesn't require investigators to move at a particular speed. 'The time factor kicks in after someone is indicted,' he said."). If that is the case, then the 270 days should be ticking, and 41 have passed since April 20.

Another discrepancy

Another discrepancy between some stories is where Wainwright was arrested. The Hattiesburg American originally said he was arrested at a gas station, but the AP says he was arrested at his home.

One thing on which everyone agrees

All of the stories note that Bob Hopkins, head of UPD, still won't say what Wainwright's "threats" actually said and that nothing that is currently available to the public appears to justify Wainwright's arrest and incarceration, which will have lasted two months this coming Wednesday.

It seems as though the DA wants the public to believe that they intend to let Wainwright rot in jail, even though time actually seems to be ticking for them to bring the matter to trial. By my estimate, they've got a little over 7 1/2 months to put up or shut up.

MORE GAS RECORDS? THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND!

Here's something I wrote today on the forum in response to this from a couple other posters regarding the topic of gas prices:

#1: I have said this before in the forums on here. The government should not step in at all when it comes to businesses.

#2: "In the end, it is the American consumer who is to blame. Oil companies will continue to push gas prices up. Right now the American consumer is telling the oil companies that we will stomach these types of prices for gas."

My response

Out of necessity, government is intimately involved in business and commerce. It's the government that issues money. It's the government that sets up the rules that create what many erroneously call "the free market." It's the government that maintains and manages the infrastructure (roads, rails, air travel, harbors, etc.) that allows business to be carried out.
It's the government that allows the creation and regulation of corporations.

Government should not unnecessarily impede commerce, but neither should it allow those engaged in commerce to indulge in rapacious practices. We should always seek a happy medium between government regulation and self-regulation (where business and commerce are concerned).

The price of gas is a special case because its price affects the price of literally everything else. The consumer is no more to blame for the price of gas than sick people are to blame for the price of medicine. That is to say, gas is a necessity--people cannot do without it. They must buy it.

In such cases, reasonable measures must be taken to ensure that the public is not being taken advantage of. Unfortunately, we either do not have such measures in place or they are not being enforced.

Instead, we are witnessing and being subjected to an outrageous, unjustifiable transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. The argument that the public should band together and do something about this situation (and other ones like it) is an enticing one. However, I would argue that we did that already when we created our system of government. The problem is not "the government," the problem is effective corporate control of our government and those who represent us, i.e., Thad "Poison Pill" Cochran.

What oil companies have and do (and don't have and don't do)

Renewable fuels must play a part in getting us out of this mess.

If you saw "Who Killed The Electric Car," you know that electric cars were a viable solution to the very problem we're facing right now. But oil companies don't sell electricity.

Biodiesel would be a great alternative. But oil companies don't sell vegetable oil.

Hemp fuel would be a great alternative. But oil companies wouldn't be able to keep the lid on hemp production and besides, hemp production is illegal.

But oil companies do have very good friends in the White House...

UPWARD INCOME REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME: RECORD GAS PRICE EDITION

So, another record average gas price.

For the last four years--i.e., since we invaded--up to 15% of Iraq's oil has just...poof!...disappeared. And no one knows exactly why.

But we do know that the average price of gas just hit another record high.

Armed Madhouse Theory

Greg Palast has written about the possible reasons why the oil has "disappeared." In his book "Armed Madhouse," he details the plans for Iraq's oil that were argued over by the neocons and the oil industry.

Long story short, the oil companies won the argument and Iraq is producing far below its capacity and now we learn that even some of that is vanishing into thin air. And why would western oil companies want Iraq to produce less oil?

Simple--it's all part of the income redistribution plan for those who want socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Gas prices are kept artificially high and then, inexplicably, western oil companies have record profits. And the profit records being set are not records for say, this decade, or the last twenty years, or for just the oil industry.

No, that's for chumps--the profits we're talking about are setting records for all time, for all industries, for the entire world.

Iraq "loses" some oil here and there, and ExxonMobil sets records both in profit and gas prices. In the process, more money is extracted from us--i.e., your income, my income, everyone's income is redistributed to the rich.

$60 for a tank of gas

This past Friday, I had to take a long trip and filled up my tank--I got a little over 20 gallons of gas and it cost me almost $59. In late 2001, the average price of gas was around $1.24/gallon.

I have the same job now as I did then and my cost of living raises have not kept pace with this dramatic price increase. What cost approximately $25 in late '01--less than 6 years ago--now costs more than twice that. Good post on this over at Americablog.

Believe me, I could use that extra $25-$35 for, I don't know, an oil change...

(WAR + IRAQ) REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT=RECORD GAS PRICES

So last week the average price of gas reached an all time high:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. average retail gasoline prices rose to an all-time high over the past two weeks, due to a number of refinery outages, according to the latest nationwide Lundberg survey.

The national average price for self-serve regular unleaded gas was $3.0684 a gallon on May 4, an increase of 19.47 cents per gallon in the past two weeks, according to the survey of about 7,000 gas stations.

The prior all-time record was an average price of $3.0256 per gallon, that was reached on August 11, 2006.

Supposedly the price increase is due to "refinery outages" and the source in the story says there have been "at least 12 refinery incidents" in the last two weeks. Anybody know anything about those 12 incidents?

I have definitely felt this:

"So far this year the average price of regular unleaded gasoline has surged more than 88 cents per gallon..."

I'm sure ExxonMobil has felt that "surge" also, but not in the same way as you and I...I'm sure they'll break the all-time quarterly profit record again...

Considering all the people I encounter that cite high gas prices during the Carter administration, I found this part interesting:

"However, the current price is 6.4 cents short of the inflation-adjusted high that was reached in March of 1981, at that time regular grade self serve gasoline was $1.35 per gallon, but on an inflation-adjusted basis today that would translate into $3.13 per gallon."

That was at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's first term...I'll have to file that little factoid away for future use--the inflation-adjusted high for gas prices came under Reagan...

Oh, and one other thing--when that record was reached, there was a conflict involving Iraq going on, just...like...now. So I guess we have more proof of this theorem: (war + Iraq) Republican president =record gas prices.

WAINWRIGHT UPDATE--HOPKINS STILL WON'T TALK

The Hattiesburg American files an update:

Southern Miss Police Chief Bob Hopkins said Thursday that the case hadn't been turned over to Forrest and Perry county District Attorney Jon Mark Weathers' office.

This is an outrage. Wainwright was arrested on April 18th (smack dab in the middle of the week of the Virginia Tech massacre and the Columbine anniversary) for writing SOMETHING that's supposedly criminal but Hopkins won't tell us what that criminal writing is. And now Nancy Kaffer finds out that Wainwright's case hasn't even been turned over to the DA?

That means Hopkins won't tell anyone--not the media, the public, OR the criminal justice system--what Wainwright wrote that was criminal in nature. Wainwright will have been in jail for 3 weeks this Wednesday, all because Hopkins wants us to believe he has an open and shut case but won't share the evidence with anyone. Perhaps because he...doesn't have any?

LOSING THE "WAR ON TERROR"


Happy "Mission Accomplished" Anniversary!

If the goal of the so-called "war on terror" is to REDUCE terrorism, then the U.S. is losing that war.

Compared to 2005, terrorist attacks were UP 25% in 2006, and 40% more people were killed by extremists in 2006. This is coming from the Bush administration's own State Department, which said there were around 14,000 terror attacks in 2006.

Just under half of those were in Iraq!

If on the other hand, the publicly unstated but actual goal of the "war on terror" is to reduce the civil liberties of Americans and give their tax money away in the form of fat government contracts to the military-industrial complex, we're winning the "war on terror" big-time! Go USA!

WAINWRIGHT: TRANSFERRED, NEW BULLETIN REVEALED, HOPKINS MUM

The Hattiesburg American reports today that Charles Yuri Wainwright has been transferred from the Forrest County Jail to the Lamar County Jail but won't "say why the transfer was made."

Also, USM police chief Bob Hopkins continues to keep to himself whatever evidence he has of a "threat" made by Wainwright. The only conclusion I can draw from Hopkins' refusal to produce any evidence is that there is none. There is absolutely no reason for Wainwright's "threat" to be a secret known only to Bob Hopkins, especially more than a week after Wainwright's arrest.

The Hattiesburg American did reveal the text of an April 15th MySpace bulletin heretofore unknown to the general public:

"Due to unbearable conditions in the lack of any self imporatance (sic) beyond a shallow narcissism and a commodity fetish sense of well being, I will not bother with a justification for my future actions," Wainwright wrote in a bulletin dated April 15. "America has become an insipid hypocrisy for the one virtue it was meant to represent, and the time has come to unleash that contradiction in the most violent, ruthless way possible."

As Rome was undone by barbarians, he continues, "the facism of Ameirca (sic) must be shown through the most obvious statement of its decadence. Collateral damage is an assumed casualty."

The prose is very untidy and awkward, the spelling careless, and the message incoherent. There's a little Marx in there (the "commodity fetish" part), and a poster on the Hattiesburg American forum thought he detected some Nietzsche.

I'm curious as to what Wainwright would define as the "one virtue" America was "meant to represent." I wonder what Bob Hopkins or a jury would think that "one virtue" is. It might be clearer if we had the entire text of this bulletin to work with, but then again, maybe it wouldn't. We do have the entire text of four other, post-Virginia Tech bulletins, and they're about as vague and rambling as this one.

What are his "future actions?"

I think Hopkins assumes, or wants the public (or a jury) to assume that what Wainwright is referring to as his "future actions" is an allusion to some threat. After all, Wainwright does go on to say that it's time to violently and ruthlessly "unleash that contradiction." However, the future actions are left to the imagination of the reader--maybe that was Yuri's one big mistake.

How does one "unleash" a contradiction, anyway? Especially if one isn't told the specifics of the contradiction--we understand that Yuri thinks America acts contrary to that elusive "one virtue" it's "meant to represent." But even then, how are contradictions "unleashed?" I mean, really--what the fuck is this dude talking about?

I think Wainwright's lack of clarity and lack of specificity will lead to his eventual exoneration. Words have meanings, Mr. Hopkins. One cannot read references to "future actions" and contradictions violently unleashed and "collateral damage is an assumed casualty" and just assign those words whatever meaning one would like them to have. By the way, that last bit seems to be saying that collateral damage will be done away with rather than that there will be a lot of innocent people killed.

But back to the meaning of words and sentences and contexts--Wainwright is obviously a blowhard--a smart blowhard, but still a blowhard--that wants to sound thoughtfully meancing but instead just kinda sounds like a guy regurgitating a bunch of "difficult" philosophical catch phrases meant to sound like dialogue from a "deep" sci-fi/action flick. And obviously this tripe was sent out as bulletins to his MySpace "friends," most of which would have deleted it without ever reading it, or would have understood where he was coming from and maybe even agreed. After all, they were his "friends."

Bottom line, writing a bunch of pretentious, vague bullshit to your friends shouldn't get you locked in jail on a million dollar bond just to let the police make a point. Is this still America or was Yuri absolutely right about the "insipid hypocrisy" and the "facism [sic]?"

GWOT: INTERESTING COINCIDENCES...

Isn't it veeeerrry interesting that the day after the Senate passes an Iraq spending bill that contains a timetable, suddenly we're capturing (also killing) insurgents, taking back cities from the Taliban, and the Saudis are foiling "terror plots" to get this--fly planes into oil refineries?

What a series of convenient coincidences to help neocons make the case that we're succeeding in the war on our freedom...I mean, the war on "terror"...I mean, terror (no quotes)...

Here's what the AP had to say about the foiled "terror plot":

"They had reached an advance stage of readiness, and what remained only was to set the zero hour for their attacks," the ministry's spokesman, Brig. Mansour al-Turki, told The Associated Press in a phone call. "They had the personnel, the money, the arms. Almost all the elements for terror attacks were complete except for setting the zero hour for the attacks."

No "zero hour?"

So this supposed attack could have theoretically taken place any time between today and the end of time?

Huh...I guess that's why they had to move on it, then. Surely the U.S. Senate having passed their Iraq sort-of-but-not-really withdrawal bill the day before the arrests had nothing to do with it...

WAINWRIGHT--The more I read...

...the more suspicious I am that this is all about using the arrest to make USM look tough. The Sun Herald mentions a Wednesday, April 18th (the day of Wainwright's arrest) press conference held by Bob Hopkins. Perfect timing to make USM look like they're tough on crime--two days after Virginia Tech and two days before the Columbine anniversary.

Here's another thing that's odd--Hopkins assures us that Wainwright posted this material on MySpace before Virginia Tech. That means that whatever Wainwright posted had to be posted at the latest on Sunday, April 15. Then why wait until Wednesday the 18th to arrest him?

The Sun Herald reproduces the email that was sent out to everyone at the university after the arrest, and they lay it on thick:

University Police are sensitive to heightened concerns in the wake of Monday’s tragic incident at Virginia Tech University.

“Our critical incident response system was successful in this case. It worked because a member of the campus community came forward with information that we were able to assess and then act upon,” said Dr. Joe Paul, vice president for student affairs at Southern Miss. “We want our faculty, staff and students to come forward any time they feel the need.”

Wow! A good reason to email everyone on campus and let them know that "our cops are on the beat" despite what Student Printz writer Haskel Burns referred to as "the considerable amount of crime which takes place on the Southern Miss campus" in an April 17 editorial headlined "Campus crime surge intolerable." Then a press conference smack dab in the middle of the week of Virginia Tech and the Columbine anniversary.

But still no word on what it was that Wainwright said that got him arrested. The Sun Herald mentions Hopkins' certainty that the threats were real, but "he would not elaborate" on what Wainwright wrote, supposedly because he is still "in the early stages of the investigation."

What is there to investigate? Presumably Hopkins was tipped off that Wainwright said something bad on MySpace, investigated it, and arrested Yuri. Therefore, what we want to know has already been investigated. They may go through Wainwright's computer or notebooks or whatever and find lots of other stuff, but the charge he was arrested for--"Posting of Messages through Electronic Media for Purpose of Causing Injury to Any Person"--has already been investigated.

I hope my suspicions are proven wrong...then I could go back to having a life.

THE WAINWRIGHT "THREATS"

updated--added 4-24-07

The story so far:

4-17-07

-Charles Yuri Wainwright logs into his MySpace page for the last time

4-18-07

-Charles Yuri Wainwright was arrested at a gas station in Lamar County

-Wainwright charged with "Posting of Messages through Electronic Media for Purpose of Causing Injury to Any Person" (Sec. 97-45-17 of the MS Code)

-Wainwright's home is searched and a number of guns found--also, his computer and other writings are seized

4-19-07

-Wainwright questioned by authorities


4-20-07

-Wainwright appears in Forrest County Justice Court and his bond is set at $1,000,000

-Wainwright is interviewed by the Hattiesburg American, calls the situation a "misunderstanding" and mentions 3 MySpace bulletins he posted

-Poster "Hcinms" joins Hattiesburg American forum and claims to be one of Wainwright's "potential targets"

-Poster "efevans" claims threats were made against 2 USM faculty members by name

-Poster "dorkface" joins the forum, says his wife worked with Wainwright and went to high school with him

4-21-07

-Dorkface posts the text of Wainwright's bulletins


4-23-07

-Hattiesburg American claims authorities are withholding from the paper the text of Wainwright's offending writings

-efevans claims that Wainwright's threats were not in the bulletins, but rather in MySpace emails

-I talk to sources involved with the USM press who confirm that UPD Chief Bob Hopkins is withholding the text of the threats from the press

4-24-07

-Student Printz publishes MySpace bulletins from forum, two columns questioning Wainwright's detention.

-In Student Printz story, Hopkins still refuses to comment on the nature of the "threat"


My take on all this

It is now approaching a week since Wainwright's arrest, and the offending statements that Wainwright supposedly wrote have not been made public. My suspicion is that Wainwright is being used to demonstrate that USM is on top of things in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
Certainly headlines such as these make it look as though UPD chief Bob Hopkins has everything under control at USM:

"Authorities Say USM Arrest Averted Tragedy" WLBT.com, 4-19-07
"USM police: Student was planning attack" WLBT.com, no date given

However, like many people who have read Wainwright's MySpace blogs, bio and bulletins, I don't think that he should have been thrown in jail and slapped with a million dollar bond. And that is my whole concern about this issue: did what he wrote warrant jail? But the authorities won't tell the public or the media what he wrote. This has a rather chilling effect on free speech, methinks, as evidenced by the reluctance of dorkface to post the bulletins.

There may in fact be some more Wainwright writings that we have not yet seen that do threaten bodily harm to specific people. But if that were the case, one would think the UPD would charge him under Sec. 97-45-15--that's the part of the Mississippi code that deals with cyber-stalking and threatening people with bodily harm, to wit:

"(1) It is unlawful for a person to:

(a) Use in electronic mail or electronic communication any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to that person's child, sibling, spouse or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person."

The law he was charged with violating, Sec. 97-45-17, seems rather vague and inconsistent with what seems to be the thrust of the investigation and the innuendo surrounding it, i.e., he threatened professors, he had guns, he was planning an attack but we don't know when, etc. To commit an offense under Sec. 17, one would have to "post a message for the purpose of causing injury to any person." That's it--that's the long and short of it.

That statute seems like it could apply to almost any situation and does not have the caveat that 97-45-15 has, which is that political speech does not fall under its purview.

I can't say for sure that Wainwright didn't do anything wrong--he very well may have. And if he did, then it's good that action was taken. But each day that goes by without a revelation of what Wainwright wrote that got him thrown in jail creates more suspicion that Wainwright is being used as a stalking horse to make the university look tough on crime.

However, my feeling is that Wainwright is guilty of nothing more than bad, distasteful, juvenile, and purposely shocking writing. And maybe also dissatisfaction with his college courses. He may be "guilty" of being an atheist, or being off his meds, or owning a lot of guns. But I think if they really had something on him, we'd already know what it was.

But I could be wrong--we shall see.

THE CAT'S IN THE CRADLE...

My father is a very educated man and consequently has a lot of books. When I was younger, I would occasionally skim through the titles in his library, which took up a whole wall in our house.

One day I ran across a book with a split spine and the cool artwork you see here:



I asked my father about the novel and he didn't know that much about it--he seemed to know who Vonnegut was, but didn't really remember the book. At any rate, he said I could borrow it and read it (not sure how old I was then--late teens?). So I did.

And I completely loved it. In my estimation, both then and now, it's the perfect book--provocative and challenging but easy to read. It's highly imaginative and takes on so many aspects of the human condition that "Slaughterhouse-5" pales in comparison. To me, anyway--to be honest, I never finished "Slaughterhouse-5."

I then began to haunt secondhand bookstores and collected all of his writing I could find. I meant to read every one of them, but I still have yet to do that. After all, as the man himself said:

"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different."

So I farted around some, but I did read a lot of his books multiple times. His sense of humanity and his iconoclastic take on the world is one of a kind. Given that, I am so glad that he lived long enough to help us make some sense of the Bush II years. Vonnegut wasn't afraid to point out that the emperor had no clothes, or to put it another way:

"No damn cat, no damn cradle."

PROFIT OVER PEOPLE (PART THE UMPTEENTH)...AND THE "IRAQ EFFECT"

Three stories caught my eye today. They all have something in common--trying to minimize costs while sacrificing people's livelihoods.

Here's the first one about Citigroup eliminating 17,000 jobs--yes, 17,000:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Citigroup Inc. (C.N: Quote, Profile , Research) said on Wednesday it would eliminate 17,000 jobs, or about 5 percent of its workforce, in a broad restructuring designed to cut costs, boost profit, and bolster a lagging stock price.

An additional 9,500 jobs will move to lower-cost locations, including two-thirds through attrition, meaning 8 percent of the bank's 327,000-person workforce will be affected by the restructuring."

I assume that "lower-cost locations" means somewhere outside the United States. And so it continues, the quest for profit over people.

Here's the second one, about Walter Reed hospital:

"In addition, the Pentagon made problems worse by ordering a hold-down on costs and expenses — dubbed "efficiency wedges" — even as Walter Reed began experiencing an influx of thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan."

The "hold-down on costs and expenses" means that profit takes precedence over caring for wounded soldiers. The move to privatize services at Walter Reed led to the exodus of many long-time employees.

And the third one, about Jefferson Davis County Schools in Mississippi:

"PRENTISS, Miss. -- The Jefferson Davis County school system is cutting 16 teaching positions in order to save money.

Superintendent Wayne Fortenberry made the announcement at a school board meeting Tuesday.

Fortenberry said that the teachers, who were let go based on seniority, are part of a reduction-in-force plan designed by state financial adviser Diane Day."

Iraq Effect, Fucked-up Priorities and the Triumph of the Corporatocracy

I'm not really sure how this fits into my little thesis here or if it even does--obviously there's not a corporation involved in this story, so there's not really a profit motive to cut jobs. But I suppose the connection to the other two stories is this--fucked-up priorities.

By which I mean, this school story is a perfect example of the "Iraq effect"--the sense created by the myth that we're doing a good thing "helping" people overseas yet our own children and communities go wanting. The conservative choir, directed now by John McCain, is always singing the tune called "But what about all the good things we're doing in Iraq?" By which they mean painting schools, building hospitals, insuring universal health care, and creating a haven for the corporatocracy.

The problem is, we're spending so much friggin' money to be in this unnecessary war that has only exacerbated terrorism and completely defeats its own supposed purpose, that Jefferson Davis County schools has to lay off teachers, which means classrooms that are more crowded, courses that aren't offered, etc. So Iraqi schools supposedly get painted and we have to lay off teachers.

And all to save money! Money that's going right down the shitter and into the hands of Halliburton and Blackwater and who the fuck knows who else in the wasteland of Iraq. Don't forget the pallets of billions of dollars in cash that just disappeared. Could some of that money been used to keep teachers at Jefferson Davis County schools?

The Crux of The Biscuit-round and round it goes

That's called "fucked-up priorities." That's how the school story is connected to the corporate stories--war is a racket for the corporatocracy which steals money away from our schools, our communities, and our future to make a buck off a protracted, ill-advised, immoral war that not only doesn't make us safer but also puts us in danger.

And then that profit is used in turn to eliminate 17,000 jobs and bid for services at veteran's facilities...and round and round it goes.

IRANIAN WEAPONS IN IRAQ? IS BUSH PLAYING THIS CRAPPY TUNE AGAIN?

I thought we had debunked this whole Iran-in-Iraq thing. Maybe the Bushies thought that the Iranian detention of the 15 Brits set the stage for people to buy this bullshit story about Iran "destabilizing" Iraq.

The best post I've read so far about it is here at Americablog. The title of the post gets it just right:

" Iran reportedly training Sunni insurgents. In related news, government is full of it."

Here's a great quote from the CNN story linked above:

"The death and violence in Iraq are bad enough without this outside interference," Caldwell said. "Iran and all of Iraq's neighbors really need to respect Iraq's sovereignty and allow the people of this country the time and the space to choose their own future."

The sheer fucking arrogance of this is unbelievable--the U.S. is the "outside interference" that did not/does not "respect Iraq's sovereignty!" Who is fooled by this utterly transparent fakery? I guess the piddly one-third of the populace who still clings to Bush and his stupid, horrible war, that's who. Oh, and of course, the media.

From the same story, here's another way you know this shit is fake:

"We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them," Caldwell said. "We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees' debriefs."

Iraq and Iran established diplomatic relations in 1990 but still have a lot disputes. Caldwell doesn't given any specifics about the detainees he mentions, but one can imagine that if they're Iraqis and/or being tortured, why the hell wouldn't the Iraqis try to pin something on Iran? After all, these detainees may figure that the U.S. will leave Iraq to go after Iran, which is what people fighting againt the U.S. would like to see. So it's perfectly logical for an Iraqi detainee to blame "EFPs" on Iran.

Also, since it's probably very obvious what the U.S. forces want to hear during "interrogations," detainees--particularly if they're Sunni--are more than happy to blame something on Iran so that we'll go over to Iran and leave the detainees' domestic operations alone.

One more thing

One more quote from the CNN story:

"Munitions from Iran were found in a black Mercedes sedan in Baghdad's Jihad neighborhood on Tuesday after a tip from a civilian, he said. An Iranian-made rocket was found in the back seat and Iranian weapons were found in the trunk and around a nearby house, Caldwell said."

Let's suppose that it's actually true that Iranian weapons were found in Iraq. That does not necessarily mean that it is the stated policy of the current ruling government of Iran to provide Iraqi insurgents with weapons. For all we know, insurgents go into Iran and steal weapons.

Plus, so what if Iran trains Iraqi insurgents? The U.S. doesn't own the world--Iran is a sovereign country and has a right to conduct foreign policy according to international law. Is it anymore illegal under international law for Iran to sell weapons to Iraq than it is for us to rush cluster bombs to Israel in the midst of a conflict (which I guess would mean pretty much at any time)?

R.I.P., JERRY BURGE

A guy from my hometown died in Iraq recently and his funeral is this Thursday. His name was Jerry Burge--he's two years older than me and I'm trying to find pictures of him to see whether I knew him or not. The one picture I found doesn't look like anyone I know.

Another death for "freedom!" Fuck this fucking war and its death and waste and imperialism.

I read a good quote today from the Howard Zinn book I've been slowly going through (it's a collection of essays called "Passionate Declarations" and it's really quite good). Zinn's quoting a WWII veteran that said the following to Studs Terkel:

"It was a useless war, as every war is...How goddamn foolish it is, the war. There's no war in the world that's worth fighting for, I don't care where it is. They can't tell me any different. Money, money is the thing that causes it all. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that the people that start wars and promote them are the men that make the money, make the ammunition, make the clothing and so forth. Just think of the poor kids that are starving to death in Asia and so forth that could be fed with how much you make one big shell out of (p. 104)"

And then there is also this quote from Admiral Gene LaRocque, also speaking to Terkel about WWII:

"...I hate it when they say 'He gave his life for his country.' Nobody gives their life for anything. We steal the lives of these kids. We take it away from them. They don't die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them (p. 105)."

R.I.P., Jerry Burge. Note to readers who may be considering joining the military--don't.

NEOCON JOE AND SYRIAN HYPOCRISY

On Morning Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Joe implies that we should go after Syria or at least not negotiate with them because they're a "state sponsor" of "terrorism," specifically mentioning Hamas.

Saudi Arabia also supports Hamas and maintains a state of war against Israel.

Joe says “I say this because we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-01.”

According to the unlikely yet official story, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and none was from either Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet our president receives Saudi officials at his Texas estate and holds their hands and kisses their cheeks.

But I want to make something clear: by pointing these things out, I am not advocating a war with or an attack on Saudi Arabia. Rather, I am trying to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the neocon/Bush/batshit-crazy hawk position. And not just the hypocrisy, but the wanton disregard for human life that has come about as a result of that hypocrisy.

I would ask the neocons--if our involvement in the Middle East is truly about freedom, democracy, morality, fighting "terrorism" and NOT about oil, then why are we not occupying Mecca? That's the reason I bring this up--because it points out the selective use of the neocon's already tortured (pun intended) logic when it comes to threats to Israel, state sponsorship of "terrorism," democracy, and treatment of women.

In other words, what George W. Bush and the neocons are saying to Saudi Arabia is the following:

"If you play our game, i.e., you don't try to get out from under the petrodollar and buy lots of weapons from us and let us have military bases there and invest in the U.S. and specifically with the family business of the President, then the following facts do not matter to us: that you are not a democracy, you're a state sponsor of terror, you oppress women, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from your country, and so forth."

That's just realpolitik, man--calm down!

That may in fact be realpolitik, but for George W. Bush to pretend to advocate democracy for the Middle East and send Americans to die in Iraq in a war of choice which he says will achieve a democratic Middle East while he chooses to have Saudi leaders to his ranch instead of bombing them, is a sign of a very sick man.

And here's my main point: why can't other state sponsors of terror be dealt with like Bush deals with Saudi Arabia, a state sponsor of terror? Why can't we negotiate with them like we do with Saudi Arabia? Why can't we avoid sending our soldiers to die in the countries of state sponsors of terror--that's what we are currently doing with Saudi Arabia?

I'm not sure I'm being entirely clear, so I'll rephrase what I'm trying to say: George W. Bush, supposedly the great slayer of terrorists and benevolent bringer of democracy to the Middle East, has taken very different approaches to the same problem in the cases of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Iraq--a state sponsor of terror which was no threat to its neighbors, was a secular regime and had no WMD--was invaded, resulting in an ongoing bloodbath which consumes American lives all but daily.

However, Saudi Arabia, not only a state sponsor of terror but also a threat to our main ally in the region (they maintain a state of war with Israel), an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship, and the breeding ground for the head of al Qaeda and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers--gets to send its leaders to hold hands with our leader and is not subject to invasion.

Therefore, Bush has put the lie to his own rhetoric about the "war on terror" and the price Americans must pay. He's proven that state sponsors of terror do not have to be invaded and subjugated and the lives of our soldiers sacrificed.


My final point

My final point, then, is not to ask why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia, but rather to ask why we have invaded Iraq, given the strikingly similar track records of the two countries. Or to say it another way--and taking Bush's own rhetoric to its logical conclusion--since we don't have to invade Saudi Arabia, we never had to invade Iraq (which I've already said a million times, but not with Saudi Arabia as a comparison).

Why aren't more people angry about this?

NO PRE-WAR LINKS TO AL QAEDA; MORE ON SAUDI ARABIA

I've been doing a lot of writing on the forum this week...

No al Qaeda links

Here's an article published today that indicates Saddam had no links to al Qaeda:

Coincidentally (or perhaps not), Dick Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh yesterday contradicting these Defense Department findings, which were:

"(AP) Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides."

This was something I had hoped would be done before Saddam's execution--simply ask him whether he had ties with al Qaeda and if he had WMD. Now we see that they asked him about al Qaeda; I wonder if a Defense Department report will be released any time in the near future indicating that they asked Saddam about WMD.

More on Saudi Arabia

I found out something the other day that I was not aware of, namely that Saudi Arabia maintains a state of war with Israel. The Saudis are also known funders of Hamas and Hezbollah, and if one believes the official 9/11 story, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None of the hijackers were from Iraq or Afghanistan.

I am not advocating that we go to war with Saudi Arabia, but I am curious why Bush chose to invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. I am curious why Bush holds hands with Saudi princes when they come to his villa in Crawford for cordial visits. After all, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia had/has "al Qaeda connections" (Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, after all) and that they fund groups that are at odds with Israel and that they consider themselves to be in a state of war with Israel. Also, Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist Islamic monarchy that tramples on the rights of women.

These are all arguments used to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but somehow Bush is willing to overlook them in Saudi Arabia's case. What I'm trying to say is that, in light of these facts, Bush's claim to be fighting a "global war on terror" while simultaneously considering Saudi Arabia an ally is completely absurd.

Now I can think of a couple reasons why it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war with Saudi Arabia--namely, Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam. Arguing that we are not at war with Islam would be very difficult while bombing and/or occupying Mecca.
But also, the Bush family has been very cozy with the Saudis for decades now. Saudis helped George W. out of a couple jams in his business dealings. Also, the price of oil would be even more outrageous than it is now if we were to attack Saudi Arabia.

Consequences of not playing the game by our rules

But I think the real reason we don't attack Saudi Arabia is because they have bought into our system. They have invested heavily in the U.S., they've let the U.S. have military bases there, they aren't threatening the hegemony of the petrodollar, etc.

In other words, they're playing our game and they benefit from it. The U.S. has never liked countries that don't play our game, i.e., Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, Iraq, etc. We don't mind dictators as long as they know and remain in their place in the international system over which we rule--Saudi Arabia being a prime example of that principle. China is another example--they're a Communist country that violates human rights but since our biggest retailer Wal-Mart benefits so greatly from trade with China, we give them a pass.
However, we maintain a crippling embargo against Cuba supposedly because it is a Communist country. The real reason, however, is that Castro doesn't play our game.

WHY THEN DOES BUSH HOLD THEIR HANDS? AND KISS THEIR CHEEKS?

Aren't we often told that we have to support Israel above all else when it comes to foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East? And aren't we also told that those who wish harm to Israel are our enemies simply because of their antipathy for Israel? And that states shouldn't sponsor terrorism? And that countries that treat women badly are backwards? And that theocratic, fundamentalist absolute monarchies are anathema to us?

If that's so, why does George Bush stroll hand-in-hand with representatives of Saudi Arabia? After all, we are reminded in an AP report today that:

"Olmert specifically called on Saudi Arabia on Sunday to take the lead in holding a regional conference, the first time Israel has made such a request of the Saudis, who maintain a state of war with Israel but are pushing for a peace deal."

A few facts about Saudi Arabia

Fifteen of the 19 supposed 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Here's a description of the restrictions on women in Saudia Arabia from Human Rights Watch:

"In interviews with roughly 100 Saudi women academics, educators and medical professionals, Human Rights Watch documented how male guardianship of adult women denies women the right to employment, education, health, and freedom of movement. Government policy often explicitly requires male consent for a range of everyday activities. This system, premised on the idea that women have limited or no legal capacity to act on their own behalf, affects all Saudi women across economic or social divides. While guardianship is construed as a form of protection for women, in fact, it fails to protect some of their most basic rights."

Here's some info from Amnesty International on Saudi Arabia's medieval system of law enforcement:

"There are still scores of political prisoners and possible prisoners of conscience. Saudi Arabia continues to use flogging and amputations as punishments. Executions, beheadings with a sword, occur regularly and are disproportionately carried out against foreign nationals. Foreign workers are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, particularly female domestic workers, who have virtually no protection at all."

And here's some info on Saudi Arabia's relationship with Israel:

"However, the fifth Arab nation contiguous to Israel, Saudi Arabia, now the dominant nation in the Arab League, remains in a formal state of war with Israel, having never agreed to any armistice or any semblance of a peace agreement with Israel. Instead, Saudi Arabia has consistently funded all terror groups at war with Israel, from Hamas to the 10 PLO terror factions based in Damascus.

Saudi Arabia has earned the distinction as the first nation since the Third Reich which is officially "Judenrein" - Jew free. By law, no Jew may visit or live in Saudi Arabia."

Let's Recap

Saudi Arabia is a known state sponsor of terror and yet is one of the U.S. defense industry's biggest clients.


Saudi Arabia has never made peace with Israel and forbids Jews to even enter their country.

Saudi Arabia calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestianian territories and a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capitol.

Saudi Arabia oppresses women and has a horrible human rights record. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and makes no pretense of being one--they don't even have demonstration elections.

And according to the official 9/11 story, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

But the Bush admininstration considers Saudi Arabia to be a strong ally in the war on terror. What the fuck is wrong with this picture?



Many of the things we've established about Saudi Arabia were also true of Saddam Hussein. Many of the arguments neocons used to condemn Saddam Hussein (or Arabs and/or Muslims generally) are true of Saudi Arabia. So why was Saddam demonized while Bush holds hands with Prince Abdullah? I would sum up the difference in one word: Petrodollar.