« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

October 31, 2006

Another opportunity for Lula to learn from Chavecito

From the Beeb, some interesting words on the newly re-elected Lula and what his mandate could mean:

Brazil's newly re-elected President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has set out priorities for his second term.

In television interviews, he said the emphasis would be economic development, the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, and education.

Lula, as the left-leaning President is known, won more than 60% of the vote in Sunday's poll, beating his rival Geraldo Alckmin.

He interprets that as a mandate to continue prioritising the poor.

Speaking on Brazilian television, the president said a layer of Brazilian society had for centuries been marginalised and if those people could be levered up into the middle class everyone would benefit.

In the coming days Lula's challenge is to assemble a solid coalition in Brazil's parliament, and some commentators are pessimistic about prospects for significant legislation.

"I believe that Lula will have a very difficult time in Brazil for the next four years," said Claudio Cuto, a politics professor at the Catholic Pontificate University of Sao Paulo.

"Governments in Brazil need to change the constitution if they want to govern," he said, adding that the government and the opposition were sharply polarised.

"If you want, for example, to change the tax structures in Brazil you have to amend a constitution and so you need super majorities to do it."

This is not something any one leader, or small cadre of leaders, should attempt alone, as it invariably results in oligarchy and entrenched inequity. Therefore, it might be a good time for Lula to take a leaf from Chavecito's book and convene a constituent assembly, elected by the people, to write a new, more equitable constitution that lets leaders get real work done on the people's behalf.

It did wonders for Venezuela!

Quotable: John Kerry finds his spine at last

"I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy. If anyone owes our troops in the fields an apology, it is the president and his failed team and a Republican majority in the Congress that has been willing to stamp -- rubberstamp policies that have done injury to our troops and to their families.

"My statement yesterday -- and the White House knows this full well -- was a botched joke about the president and the president's people, not about the troops. The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe. It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything America, the raw politics. It's their willingness to distort, their willingness to mislead Americans, their willingness to exploit the troops as they have so many times at backdrops, at so many speeches in which they have not told the American people the truth.

"I'm not going to stand for it. What our troops deserve is a winning strategy, and what they deserve is leadership that is up to the sacrifice that they're making. Sadly, this is the best that this administration can do in a month when we have lost 100 young men and women who have given their lives for a failed policy. Over half the names on the Vietnam wall were put there after our leaders knew that our policy was wrong, and it was wrong that leaders were quiet then, and I'm not going to be quiet now. This is a textbook Republican campaign strategy: try to change the topic, try to make someone else the issue, try to make something else said the issue, not the policy, not their responsibility.

"Well, everybody knows it's not working this time, and I'm not going to stand around and let it work.

"If anyone thinks that a veteran, someone like me, who's been fighting my entire career to provide for veterans, to fight for their benefits, to help honor what their service is -- if anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq, and not the president and his people who put them there, they're crazy. It's just wrong.

"This is a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic. I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes.

"I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, the most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves.

"Enough is enough. We're not going to stand for this.

"This policy is broken, and this president and his administration didn't do their homework. They didn't study what would happen in Iraq. They didn't study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them. And they know that's what I was talking about yesterday. I'm not going to be lectured by a White House or by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who's taking a day off from mimicking and attacking Michael J. Fox, who's now going to try to attack me and lie about me and distort me. No way. It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country, are willing to lie about those who did. It's over.

"This administration has given us a Katrina foreign policy: mistake upon mistake upon mistake, unwilling to give our troops the armor that they need, unwilling to have enough troops in place, unwilling to give them the humvees that they deserve to protect them, unwilling to have a coalition that is adequate to be able to defend our interests.

"Our own intelligence agency has told us they're creating more terrorists, not less; they're making us less safe, not more. I think Americans are sick and tired of this game.

"These Republicans are afraid to stand up and debate a real veteran on this topic, and they're afraid to debate -- you know, they want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men.

"Well, we're going to have a real debate in this country about this policy. The bottom line is, these Republicans want to distort this policy. And this time it won't work, because we are going to stay in their face with the truth.

"And no Democrat is going to be bullied by these people, by these kinds of attacks that have no place in American politics. It's time to set our policy correct.

"They have a stand still and lose policy in Iraq, and they have a cut and run policy in Afghanistan. And the fact is our troops, who have served heroically, who deserve better, deserve leadership that is up to their sacrifice, period."

--John Kerry, D-Gonads

Team Black vs. Team Orange

Just in time for Halloween, kitties in the colors of the day are moshing all over a Double Wedding Ring quilt:

I don't know who won, and I don't care. Too busy laughing my ass off.

Happy Halloween, and please--in all your gorging, don't forget to leave some for the trick-or-treaters!

A quickie double-header

Nikolas Kozloff has responded, after some delay, to Roger Lowenstein's NY Times hit-piece on him, his recently published book, and (predictably) its subject, Hugo Chavez. He takes on the talking points in the same substantive manner as I did some weeks ago. (Hey Nik, no fear, I got your back!)

The Venezuelanalysis piece also includes Ron Jacobs's review (originally from CounterPunch) of Kozloff's book--a much better one in every sense than Lowenstein's little shop of errors. Factual, concise, objective and, most importantly, not reeking of the stuff that makes Lowenstein's nose so brown.

Jeezus, why can't the Times hire more real journalists and writers, and fewer apologists for everything that's wrong with capitalism? I guess the leftish bias of reality is just too much at odds with their editorial line. After all, this is the same paper that savaged Bill Clinton with abandoned glee during the Lewinsky kerfuffle. It's not as if we don't know what side their bread is buttered on!

Astonishing!

A Bloomberg news article, of all things, manages to take an objective, nonjudgmental tone (or something reasonably like it) on the Venezuela-Cuba relationship. It's too long to excerpt meaningfully here, so I'll just give you the link.

October 30, 2006

Catapult the propaganda, baby...

Sometimes, you gotta read between the lines, baby. Like when the Pentagon comes out with shit like this, you need an interpreter to translate it from gibberish into plain English, dig?

The Pentagon has set up a new unit to focus on promoting its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet.

The US Defence Department said it would expand its public relations work to fight "inaccurate" news stories.

Notice how "inaccurate" is in quotation marks? That means it means something other than it normally means, baby. Namely, that the news stories in question are, in fact, quite accurate, to the Five-Sided Hellmouth's collective dismay. Makes it hard to recruit new warm bodies to stuff in the cannons, y'see.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said media manipulation by enemies of the US is the only thing keeping him awake at night.

I'm sorry, y'all, but I have trouble picturing Rumsferatu actually sleeping, never mind losing sleep. He's undead, so all he really does is lie in his coffin in pretended repose, meditating on all the blood out there that he hasn't yet drunk to further maintain his unnatural unlife. So he's lying a bit more squirmily of late; who the hell cares? So his batwings are a bit more itchy than usual. It IS almost Halloween, after all!

Domestic support for the war in Iraq has fallen as US mid-term polls near.

See what I mean about trouble and warm bodies, baby?

The opposition Democrats are trying to win control of Congress from the Republicans.

And they'll probably succeed, too, unless Diebold has something to say about it. In which case, there could well be civil unrest. Now THAT is something for them to lose sleep (or in Rumsferatu's case, suspended animation) about!

The newly-established Pentagon unit would use "new media" channels to push its message, a spokesman said.

"We're looking at being quicker to respond to breaking news," the spokesman said.

"Being quicker to respond, frankly, to inaccurate statements."

Translation: Gotta get that lie around the world before the truth has a chance to put its boots on!

According to the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington, the Bush administration does not believe the true picture of events in Iraq has been made public.

He says the administration is particularly concerned that insurgents in areas such as Iraq have been able to use the web to disseminate their message and give the impression they are more powerful than the US.

All right, now, this is complete bullshit, man. Anyone who's been reading Baghdad Burning ought to know that the Pentagon's biggest worry on the Internet isn't triumphalist missives from the "insurgency" (translation: Iraqi resistance guerrillas and terrorists the US created), since the power grid in Iraq is at best erratic (and Internet access very spotty as a result), but the left-wing blogosphere in Europe and the Americas, which is in league with the forces of Truth.

A Pentagon memo seen by the Associated Press news agency said the new unit will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and aim to "correct the record".

A spokesman said the unit would monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.

Translation: Fake interviewees to create more fake news.

Gotta catapult that crapaganda, dig?

Keep your Jesus off my...WHAT?

And seeing as I'm female, I say KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES!

October 29, 2006

Be-bop-a-Lula!

He's Brazil's baby!

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been re-elected in a clear victory, polling more than 60% of the vote against rival Geraldo Alckmin.

In a victory speech, Lula said he would govern for all Brazilians and intensify efforts to alleviate poverty during his second four-year term.

"We will give attention to the most needy. The poor will have preference in our government," he said.

Lula narrowly failed to win in the first round, forcing Sunday's run-off.

In a speech in Sao Paulo, Lula promised to boost growth and reduce inequality to put Brazil on track to reach the ranks of developed nations.

"The foundation is in place, and now we have to get to work," he told crowds of supporters who had taken to the streets in celebration, waving Workers' Party flags.

Supporter Danusia Alves said: "For me it is a great happiness because we have a wonderful government. The people who were never taken care of now are being taken care of."

Well, Lula's record is basically good, but a tee-tiny tad mixed. On the one hand, he's taken brave steps to haul people out of poverty. On the other, the biggest causes of poverty--landlessness and illiteracy--are still rampant. And the landless people's movement is deeply disappointed in him.

Let's hope Chavecito can show him the light on his weak points, and maybe transplant a little Chavismo to Brazil. The literacy missions that were a huge success in Venezuela can be applied just as readily there, albeit on a larger scale; this is where Venezuela's oil boom could come in handy to help another neighbor country. And Lula may want to brush up on Chavecito's land-redistribution reforms, too. (Did you know that JFK is the original author of that idea? So much for the "Castro communist" accusation.)

In any event, Lula is on solid ground now, with a Chavecito-like 60% of the vote. That's a mandate, folks. Let's hope it gives him the confidence to make some big changes--and tell the IMF where to shove its "conditionalities".

Sowing distraction, reaping destruction?

Not if you-know-who can help it. Yes, folks, it's Chavecito time again!

First, a nasty little hit-piece from the Miami Herald (you know--BushCo's Latin American propaganda arm?):

Federal officials are investigating whether Smartmatic, owner of Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting Systems, is secretly controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, according to two people familiar with the probe.

In July, a Treasury Department spokeswoman disclosed that a Treasury-led panel had contacted Smartmatic, and a company representative said his firm was ''in discussions'' with the panel. At the time, those discussions were informal. The government has now upgraded to a formal investigation, the two sources said.

Sequoia's electronic voting machines operate in 17 states. In Florida, the machines are used in four counties: Palm Beach, Indian River, Pinellas and Hillsborough.

Miami-Dade and Broward use other technology.

Concerns about Smartmatic are keen on the eve of the Nov. 7 election, given fears that someone with unauthorized access to the electronic system could create electoral chaos. Some critics believe that if the Venezuelan government is involved, Smartmatic could be a ''Trojan horse'' designed to advance Chavez's anti-American agenda.

Note the familiar rhetoric that's oh-so-casually slipped in there: "Chavez's anti-American agenda". Uh, what anti-American agenda? There isn't any! Repeatedly it's been emphasized, both by Chavez and other representatives of Venezuela, that he has no quarrel with the people of the United States, but rather with their government. And seeing as that government has repeatedly tried to dislodge him from his duly elected post, it's not hard to see where that quarrel comes from!

Of course, any charges that Chavecito could be meddling in the Florida elections, either directly or by proxy, are false. But you have to read further down to see that:

The probe stems from a May 4 letter to the Treasury Department by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., raising concerns about Smartmatic's purchase of Sequoia last year. Maloney said she was disturbed by a 2004 article in The Miami Herald revealing that the Venezuelan government owned 28 percent of Bizta -- a company operated by two of the same people who own Smartmatic. Bizta bought back those shares after the article appeared, and Smartmatic now characterizes the deal as a loan.

Bizta and Smartmatic had partnered with Venezuelan telephone giant CANTV to win a $91 million contract to supply electronic voting machines for Venezuelan elections, including the controversial 2004 referendum Chávez won.

Smartmatic categorically denies any link to the Chávez regime. ''Smartmatic is a privately held corporation, and no foreign government or entity -- including Venezuela -- has ever held an ownership stake in the company,'' Mitch Stoller, a company spokesman, said in an e-mail to The Miami Herald.

Again, though, note the dodgy language: "controversial 2004 referendum". As if Chavez's victory were anything other than what it was: freely and cleanly achieved, approved by former US president Jimmy Carter and other outside observers. Whatever "controversy" there was around it was sown by a discredited, US-financed opposition group called Sumate, which did everything it could to rig the results--from signing up deceased persons on the recall petition (the "signers", however, were too dumb to attempt forging the signatures in a handwriting other than their own, so whole pages were full of different names in the same hand) to ginning up poll results that mysteriously flip-flopped the actual figures so that Chavez's numbers magically appeared under the other side's tally, and vice versa. But the Herald won't go into that (it is, after all, squarely in the State Dept's pockets, as Cuba has so recently and embarrassingly shown), so I've helpfully included some interesting links for you to peruse at your leisure and learn the real story.

I'll spare you quotations from the rest of the Herald's lengthy and ultimately meaningless screed (go to the link and read it, if you're of a mind to have your eyeballs glazed), but I will summarize by saying that in all the dreckery lies not one nugget of proof that the Venezuelan government is in any way involved with Smartmatic. Who is involved? Uh, a couple of very wealthy Venezuelans--the demographic most likely to hate Chavez's guts--with, quel surprise, strong anti-Chavez connections.

So sorry! No story. But the alarm and hysteria cranked up by this piece will no doubt resonate with the Miami Mafia, who are always eager to believe the worst about Chavez, even when there's nothing behind it.

Meanwhile, with no evidence of Venezuelan governmental interference in US elections, guess what's happening in Venezuela? If you said US governmental interference in Venezuelan elections, pass Go and collect $200!

In 2004, President Bush tried to impress likely voters who frowned on his long vacations by insisting that he was "working hard." Since then, it has become perfectly obvious that his work ethic has fallen short on key issues from relief after Hurricane Katrina and producing desired results in the "war on terror," to putting forward viable solutions to the US health care crisis or boosting the stagnating economy.

There has been one issue, however, on which the Bush administration has worked diligently: a long and expensive effort to unseat democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. As the December 3rd Venezuelan national elections approach, in which President Chávez is standing for reelection, the Bush administration, in violation of US and Venezuelan law, is providing financial, diplomatic, and strategic support for Chávez's opponents.

Yes, it's hard work, all right. Throwing money at a bottomless pit takes one helluva pitching arm. It also takes one helluva spin machine to characterize all this as "promoting democracy":

Top secret US government documents released through Freedom of Information Act requests show that the administration's anti-Chávez operations may even pre-date the September 11th terrorist attacks and the launch of the "war on terror." According to human rights and international law expert writer Eva Golinger, leaders of the infamous April 2002 coup met with top Bush administration officials at least six months prior.

Golinger, who spoke with Political Affairs from Caracas by telephone, authored the 2005 book The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela. Translated into several languages and sold all over the world, The Chávez Code comprehensively revealed the role of the US government, through its military entities, diplomatic channels, and through funding agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), in helping to plan and execute the coup. Through its role in meeting with coup leader Pedro Carmona, provision of military equipment, and diplomatic pressure on regional governments to accept the coup as legitimate, the Bush administration played a decisive, multifaceted role in those illegal activities.

Documents Golinger unearthed during the investigation for her book showed that the CIA knew the exact details of the coup plan: stage a mass demonstration of political opponents of the administration, use sections of the Caracas police loyal to the opposition to provoke violence by shooting at the crowds, blame President Chávez for the violence, have military detachments with ties to the US military kidnap him, and then claim he had resigned. US government documents show, Golinger points out, that "part of the conspiracy was convincing the public, the media, and other governments that Chávez was responsible and therefore the coup was justified."

Once this plan was implemented, Carmona seized dictatorial power and by decree dissolved all of Venezuela's democratic institutions.

Emphasis added, in case those crucial bits didn't leap out at you all by themselves.

Golinger's book is an eye-popper, and I strongly suggest you pick up a copy if you don't have one already. The labyrinth of US interference in Venezuela is far larger than the not-so-complex money trail that the Miami Herald has traced around Smartmatic.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to say that all this jiggery-pokery will end up coming to naught, as it did in all previous attempts to re-rig Caracas to Washington's liking:

Though diplomatically this campaign has failed, Golinger regards it as another level of interference in Venezuela's election. Bush and Rumsfeld's accusations, as unmerited as they may be, are repeated throughout the US and Venezuelan media. The point of the Bush administration's accusations is not to prove necessarily that Venezuela poses a real danger, says Golinger, but to convince portions of the Venezuelan population that maybe they would be better off with a president that does not provoke such responses from the US government. Indeed, statements from the US government have been carefully coordinated with opposition political campaigns, which have consistently played on fears of the people Venezuela about these issues.

Despite this level of interference, President Chávez maintains a wide lead in public opinion polls (+/- 25 points) and his supporters expect to turn out voters in record numbers again.

For BushCo and the opposition, that's an Ouch.

For the rest of the world, though, it's a Woo-hoo!

Send in the US Supreme Court, that guy's been elected by a majority vote!

When pigs grow wings and fly

The Peruvian prime minister sure put his foot in it recently. Never ask what "it" is; just be thankful it didn't come out of YOUR mouth:

Venezuela rejected on Friday reported comments by Peru's prime minister predicting an end to President Hugo Chavez's support if oil prices fall.

"It is precisely those who continue accusing President Hugo Chavez of meddling in the politics of other countries who end up meddling in our politics," Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said, calling the declarations by Peruvian Prime Minister Jorge del Castillo "unacceptable."

Del Castillo was quoted in Peruvian media this week as saying that Chavez did not present a "stable proposal" and that his government would fail to leave a lasting mark.

"When the price of oil falls, 'Chavismo' ends," Del Castillo reportedly said.

"When the price of oil falls?" BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh stop, Jorge, you're killing me. You seriously believe the price of oil is still subject to the wild market fluctuations of the past? You haven't been paying attention lately, have you?

Listen, Jorge. Reputable scientists are saying we're probably past peak production right now. The easy-to-reach, easy-to-process light crude reserves of Saudi Arabia have been vastly overstated, and the truth about those has been hushed up for a long time. Saudi Arabia is over the hump, and will soon be played out, thanks to its long habits of denial and overproduction.

Iraq? Surrrrre it might pay for its own decimation, if only those companies for whom it was snatched weren't so greedy for profits. The profits of that war are privatized, and its costs socialized--that is, taxpayers will be financing the owners' habitual feast on the world's second-largest proven reserves. Isn't that special?

Iran? Uh, nobody wants to go there. The bulk of Iran's population is now young adults, of prime military recruitment age. If Dubya--or his successor--is dumb enough to start eyeballing Iran, thinking that the world's #3 proven reserves look tempting enough to risk American lives for, millions of young, healthy Iranians will put paid to that idea. And the price of oil will not fall; on the contrary, it will rise to heights that make the current stratospheric levels look knee-high.

Which leads us back to Venezuela. Venezuelan crude is heavy; it's more like liquid asphalt than oil. There's more oil under Venezuela than Saudi Arabia, when you get right down to it; it is not anywhere near its full production capacity. In that, it's one of the few oil countries not past peak. It's not the most lucrative potential target for an oil war, though, because of the heaviness of the oil, so it's on the back burner for Washington right now. Extracting and refining it costs a lot more, but at current prices, it's more than feasible. Remember, Chavez originally figured on a modest price band of $22-28 US per barrel as being optimal for OPEC; this would enable him to produce and profit sufficiently to fund his Bolivarian Revolution. What's the current price, again? (Sheesh...no wonder the project's moving at such a roaring pace lately...)

Now, not to be too hard on you, Jorge--you're probably working with old information here. Perhaps you're thinking of the failures of Carlos Andres Perez, who was president of Venezuela in the 1970s. Perez, you see, had some of the same ideas as Chavecito. Use oil revenues to fund infrastructure and public services--great idea! But Perez's plans foundered when the price of oil plummeted--not so much because of market vagaries per se, but because of weakness and corruption within OPEC, and Venezuela itself. When a member country breaks its own OPEC quota, and other OPEC countries follow suit, can anyone honestly expect the price of oil to remain at a level that makes grand plans feasible?

So Perez got greedy (he made a pretty penny, or should I say bolivar, from oil, during his presidencies), and ultimately Venezuela paid--and suffered. Is this situation looking strangely familiar? I refer you back to Iraq: privatized profits, socialized costs.

Meanwhile, Chavecito has done one thing that you refuse to give him credit for, Jorge--he has learned from his predecessor's mistakes. And he won't repeat them. When the price of oil drops a few dollars a barrel, as has recently happened, he orders a production cut at PDVSA. Presto! Chavismo at work--maintaining control so the market freefalls of the past remain...well, in the past. And so do the blunders that tripped up Carlos Andres Perez.

And how's that Bolivarian experiment going? Well, the results speak for themselves. Chavismo is such a roaring success that it can now be exported. Bolivia is following suit, using its vast natural gas reserves to finance its own projects. And Chavecito has enough left over that he can easily offer deep discounts on CITGO oil to impoverished people in the US, as well as selling to Cuba and several Caribbean countries at a similar discount. Plus, he's bought up Argentina's debt (and turned a profit on those debt bonds!), getting the IMF off that country's neck--for good, one can hope. He's even expanded his mercy missions, offering free medical treatment in Cuba to anyone who can't afford it at home. Thousands all over Latin America have benefited.

And all this was made possible by controlling the production and price of oil, plus the added effects of Peak Oil and Gulf War II (for which there also appears to be no end in sight.)

No, I don't think Chavismo is in any danger of an early fall. Unless pigs suddenly grow wings and learn to fly.

October 27, 2006

Michael J. Fox on Limbaugh and stem cells

Like pretty well everyone who went to high school in the 1980s, I liked Michael J. Fox. Not in a screamy, crushy, posters-all-over-my-wall, die-for-him way (uh, that would have been the guys in Duran Duran), but in a he's-cute, he's-funny, I'm-proud-he's-Canadian way. This was a star who deserved his success. He packed a huge comic talent in a compact frame, with so much energy bristling off him that you could almost see it, the way people's hair stands out around their heads like a halo when they're full of static electricity. He's the little guy with a big personality, who often gets in over his head but, with sheer moxie, manages to haul his cute butt out of every scrape. There is simply no way you could overlook him, and that's what carried him on to success beyond the usual teen-idol crap. On Spin City, he was the manic glue that held City Hall together. As Marty McFly, he went Back to the Future not once, but three times--each movie eagerly anticipated almost before the previous one was out--thus proving to be a real-life time-traveller. On Family Ties, he humanized Alex P. Keaton--a character who was so arch-Republican that he would have been a complete and insufferable snotball, like Tucker Carlson, if anyone else had played him. No one else could play him! Fox's Alex could take a serious pratfall and actually learn from it. It was that rare ability to make and keep Alex real that kept me watching what would otherwise have been just another forgettable '80s sitcom.

Now he's battling a chronic, degenerative disease. Talk about taking a pratfall--only this one's not an act, and it's probably a helluva lot harder for him to pick himself up when his limbs don't quite want to co-operate. But the inner grace that made Michael J. Fox so easy to like, even when he played smart-ass Alex, has served him well, and now that everyday life is full of unintended pratfalls, heaven knows he can use it.

And he does.

He uses it to raise awareness of Parkinson's Disease. And also to garner support for the most promising avenue of future treatment, not just for Parkinson's but for a vast number of previously incurable conditions: stem-cell research. And though he shouldn't have to use it the way he's most recently had to--namely, to overcome the dirty campaigns of the far-right opponents of anything to do with stem cells and reproductive freedom--he's using it there, too, with all the characteristic aplomb of old. If anyone deserved to have the hope of being cured and going back to using his talent the way he did before he became ill, Michael J. Fox is surely that one.

Which is why it's truly disgusting to hear the way Rush Limbaugh slammed him this week, claiming his jerks and wobbles were just an act to gain sympathy--or that he'd deliberately neglected to take his medication in order to look sicker. This obviously is not the case. And that is why it's good to hear from Fox himself what's really going on. You come away with a greater sense of why he's doing what he does--and why what he really wants is not anyone's pity for his victimhood, but a cure. And most of all, you want as badly as he does for the research that could help him to go ahead--not just to see him cured, but so he and and everyone else in that situation can have a complete, healthy life. As he says, that's the REAL pro-life position. And it is unconscionable to let any ideology lay waste that hope.

So, here he is in his own words, talking with Katie Couric:

Hey Rush, how's it feel to get the smackdown from a little guy with more grace in his shaky pinky than you have in your entire corpulent carcass?

Festive Left Friday Blogging: Redemption for the cowboy hat

Hugo Chavez, lord of the llano!

And this head is entitled to the gear. Chavecito is, unlike Dubya, actually from a state where real cowboys ride the range. In fact, his own grandfather, Jorge Rafael Saavedra, was a rodeo worker, a coleador.

The spirit of the great plains lives!

October 26, 2006

Experimenting with YouTubes...

If you can see a CBC/The Fifth Estate video clip on Dick Cheney when you press Play, I've succeeded.

Enjoy!

One more illicit Colombian export...

...shared by, of all places, North Korea:

Colombia and North Korea are the largest producers of fake US banknotes, a report suggests.

The study by the US Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Secret Service said that one in every 10,000 greenbacks was a fake.

It said more affordable equipment meant counterfeiting was getting easier.

[...]

About $450bn of the $750bn of US currency in circulation is held outside the US, with up to $70m estimated to be fake.

Colombia, the biggest supplier of illegal drugs in the US, was also the number one source of counterfeit money.

It accounted for about 15% of the 56.2 million counterfeit greenbacks in circulation in 2005.

North Korea is known among officials for its so-called supernotes.

"The US Secret Service has determined through investigative and forensic analysis that these highly deceptive counterfeit notes are linked to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea and are produced and distributed with the full consent and control of the North Korean government," the report said.

Damn that Kim Jong Mentally Il! He sure knows how to hit 'em where it hurts. POW! Right in the pocketbook!

And Alvaro, you got some 'splainin' to do. Wasn't "law and order" a major plank in your recent re-election platform?

I seem to recall so...

How embarrassing!

The anti-woman, pro-death movement wins one in Nicaragua

This is absolutely disgusting. Not to mention unenforceable, unless the state becomes a willingly complicit murderer of women:

Nicaragua has approved a sweeping new law banning abortions, even in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

The national assembly approved the bill by 52 votes to none, and the bill is now likely to be signed into law.

Abortion has become a central issue in the campaign for Nicaragua's presidential elections on 5 November.

Left-wing Sandinistas in parliament supported the bill for fear of alienating Roman Catholic voters before the election, correspondents said.

The former Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega was a defender of Nicaragua's limited abortion rights and a critic of the Catholic church when he led a left-wing Nicaraguan government in the 1980s.

He has since been reconciled with the church and has become a strident opponent of abortion.

Ortega, you're a disappointment. You're gonna face hell on Earth for that one, especially if you're elected!

One really must question the necessity for this, given that the situation in Nicaragua was already dire for women seeking to end a pregnancy:

Nicaragua already has strong anti-abortion laws, with women and doctors who take part in abortions facing prison sentences of up to six years.

A section of the bill increasing those sentences to up to 30 years was not approved by the parliamentarians, and so will not be signed into law by the country's President, Enrique Bolanos.

Gee, what will they do now? Give women and doctors life sentences just for an operation? Jail women for miscarrying? For how long? Gotta be consistent with existing murder/manslaughter laws regarding this, you know!

There IS opposition:

The timing of the vote was opposed by Nicaragua's medical association and UN representatives, who warned that the debate had become politicised ahead of the election.

Reuters news agency reports that hundreds of people protested outside the National Assembly in the capital Managua on Wednesday night, saying the law would be a death sentence for the some 400 women who suffer ectopic pregnancies in Nicaragua each year.

"They are forcing women and girls to die. They are not pro-life, they are pro-death," protester Xiomara Luna told the agency.

...and while they are right about all that, I wonder: Are they enough to stand up against convinced fools like this?

Before the vote, Orlando Tardencilla, one of the members of the sub-committee which proposed the bill, said: "Unless abortion is made a crime, then people can simply come out and say: 'I have the right to an abortion, this is my body and I can decide.'

"That's like saying: 'I'm allowed to commit murder because these hands are mine, this gun is mine.'"

What this kind of facile argumentation misses is that murder isn't just killing, it requires malice aforethought--by legal definition. What woman ever had an abortion just because she hated her fetus so much that she wanted it to suffer and die miserably?

And again, as I said: Are women also going to go to jail for miscarrying? Will accidental pregnancy loss be legally characterized as manslaughter under this law? If you're going to define abortion that way, you may as well be consistent about it. That way, you leave a route open for legal challenges to succeed, and clarify, and decide the matter in favor of freedom once and for all.

A tortured silence

Two items on something we're not supposed to talk about. Shhhhh...shhh, the word of the day is TORTURE.

First, from the UK Guardian:

According to a secret intelligence report, the CIA offered to let Germany have access to one of its citizens, an al-Qaida suspect being held in a Moroccan cell. But the US secret agents demanded that in return, Berlin should cooperate and "avert pressure from EU" over human rights abuses in the north African country. The report describes Morocco as a "valuable partner in the fight against terrorism".

Yeah, I'll just bet. Say, isn't Morocco the country Michael Moore said offered an army of trained monkeys to help fight the War on Terra?

Sorry. Digression. Onwards:

The classified documents prepared for the German parliament last February make clear that Berlin did eventually get to see the detained suspect, who was arrested in Morocco in 2002 as an alleged organiser of the September 11 strikes.

He was flown from Morocco to Syria on another rendition flight. Syria offered access to the prisoner on the condition that charges were dropped against Syrian intelligence agents in Germany accused of threatening Syrian dissidents. Germany dropped the charges, but denied any link.

After the CIA offered a deal to Germany, EU countries adopted an almost universal policy of downplaying criticism of human rights records in countries where terrorist suspects have been held. They have also sidestepped questions about secret CIA flights partly because of growing evidence of their complicity.

And to think all this went on while the wingnutters in the US were running their mouths about "Old Europe" and flapping their pyorrheic gums about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". (Sorry, we can't seem to get away from monkeys here lately. They're flying out of the woodwork at me. Help! Auntie Em!)

The disclosure is among fresh revelations about how the CIA flew terrorist suspects to locations where they were tortured, and Britain's knowledge of the practice known as "secret rendition". They are contained in Ghost Plane, by Stephen Grey, the journalist who first revealed details of secret CIA flights in the Guardian a year ago. More than 200 CIA flights have passed through Britain, records show.

He describes how one CIA pilot told him that Prestwick airport, near Glasgow, was a popular destination for refuelling stops and layovers. "It's an 'ask-no-questions' type of place and you don't need to give them any advance warning you're coming," the pilot said.

The CIA used planes of Air America, a group of private companies it secretly owned, and a second company, Aero Contractors. A CIA Gulfstream V jet, frequently used for the secret rendition of prisoners, flew to Diego Garcia, the British Indian Ocean territory where the US has a large base, the book says. Grey plans to publish more than 3,000 logs of the CIA flights on the internet this week.

CIA pilots, sometimes using false identities and whose planes regularly passed through Britain, ran up huge bills in luxury hotels after flying terrorist suspects to secret locations where they were tortured. But they revealed their whereabouts and identities by indiscreet use of mobile phones and allowed outsiders to track their aircraft's flights.

On one occasion, CIA pilots and crew lived it up in Majorca after rendering Benyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian brought up in Notting Hill, west London, to Afghanistan where he was tortured. Benyam was detained in Pakistan early in 2002, and then flown to Morocco, where he says he suffered appalling torture. He is being held at Guantánamo Bay.

Benyam has said in a statement to his lawyer that he was tortured for more than two years after being questioned by US and British officials. He says that while in Morocco he was shown photos of people he knew from a west London mosque, and was asked about information he was told was supplied by MI5.

The government has consistently denied it has ever actively cooperated in the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme". The Foreign Office said yesterday that the government had "not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating transfer of individuals through the UK to places where there are substantial grounds to believe they face a real risk of torture".

Looks like that much-talked about hushed-up denial is still going on. Rule Britannia? CRUEL Britannia is more like it! So glad I didn't buy into that "We are all Londoners" crap on 7/7/05. I wouldn't want to be one right now, as I'd be hanging my head in shame over that modern Neville Chamberlain, Toady Blair.

Now, for something completely different...uh, not really:

Some countries try to refute criticism over their treatment of prisoners by saying they are only following the U.S. example on handling terror suspects, a U.N. human rights expert said on Monday.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. investigator on torture, told a news conference that "all too frequently" governments respond to criticism about their jails by saying they handled detainees the same way the United States did.

"The United States has been the pioneer of human rights and is a country that has a high reputation in the world," Nowak said. "Today, other governments are kind of saying, 'But why are you criticizing us, we are not doing something different than what the United States is doing.'"

He said nations like Jordan tell him, "We are collaborating with the United States so it can't be wrong if it is also done by the United States."

The United States can do no wrong! They torture, we torture, everybody tortures. Whatsamatteryou? You still believe in those quaint old Geneva Conventions? You must be another surrender monkey. Don't you know that if we don't torture people, even completely innocent ones, the terrorists will win???

Nowak, an Austrian law professor, said the new U.S. law adopted earlier this month, which outlaws rape and most forms of torture, still allows harsh interrogation methods rights advocates say border on torture. And it does not permit appeals in U.S. federal court.

But he acknowledged U.S. difficulties in closing Guantanamo, saying other countries were refusing to accept prisoners and that Washington did not want to send them to countries where torture was certain. In Europe to date, only Albania has offered to accept them.

Albania! Now THERE's a place you don't hear much about. Gee, I wonder why.

And say, isn't freedom on the march in Iraq now that Saddam is gone?

In Iraq, however, Nowak said there were improvements in U.S.-run jails and those of its allies following the torture scandals at Abu Ghraib. But now prisoners say jails run by Baghdad's Interior Ministry and militia are brutal.

"They would prefer if they are in detention to be in the international detention facilities rather than the Iraqi detention facilities," he said.

So, to recap: We don't torture, we don't turn them over to others to torture, we certainly don't send them to other countries to be tortured, and above all else, we do not call it torture. It's "extraordinary rendition", got that?

And if you disagree, we'll waterboard you till you pass out and can't say nothin' not no more.

It's even more disgusting than I thought...

Crooks and Liars has a video of Keith Olbermann and Sam Seder discussing the Rush Limbaugh's nasty, crass, baseless attack on Michael J. Fox. Man, is it something. Olbermann and Seder are their usual awe-inspiring, bang-on selves. But the Pigman? He really takes the bagel. They have footage of him waving his arms and shaking his blubber all over the place as he mocks Fox's involuntary, medication-related movements.

It's gross, I warn you, but you had better see it so you know just how low the enemy will go.

Minutemen make monkeys of themselves

A couple of days ago I blogged on a certain noteworthy Zapatista demonstrating just how easy it is to get past a Minuteman (pronounced "myNOOTman", as in very small and not well endowed) patrol.

Well, today, Raw Story has revealed confirmation as to just what fools these myNOOTmen be--and how foolish they want you and me to be:

The Minuteman Project sent out a press release late Tuesday evening hyping their Web site, which is showcasing 1,000 documents allegedly obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) by World Net Daily columnist Jerome Corsi. Most widely known for his longtime attacks on Democratic Senator John Kerry's military record, Corsi also co-authored a book about the Minuteman "battle" to secure America's borders.

SPP was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort by the United States, Canada and Mexico to increase the security and improve the quality of life of North Americans through greater cooperation and information sharing. Many conservative critics view the trilateral initiative as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

"The documents give clear evidence that the Bush administration has created a 'shadow government,'" Corsi said in the press release.

Corsi claims to have "hundreds of pages of e-mails from U.S. executive branch administrators who are copying the e-mail to somewhere between 25 to 100 people, a third of whom are in the U.S. bureaucracy, a third of whom are in the Mexican bureaucracy and a third of whom are in the Canadian bureaucracy."

"They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can 'harmonize' and 'integrate' our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure," Corsi said.

In plain English, I believe that translates to BOOGAboogabooga! Evil Canadians! Evil Mexicans! We should be dominating them, but instead, they are dominating us! And they do it by pretending to be collaborating with us!

Raw Story continues:

The documents can be viewed on the Minuteman Project's Stop the Security and Prosperity Project page, but there's no mention of any particular "smoking gun" which could proves the contention that the White House has created a shadow government. The anti-immigration group appears to consider the mere existence of communications among bureaucrats from the three countries as proof of their assertions.

One series of letters show U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez writing to North American Steel Association leaders in all three countries thanking them for their "suggestions on enhancing the competitiveness of the steel industry" in North America ....

"The North American industries' recommendations for launching a North American steel strategy were well received and formed the basis for the Committee's discussions on a program of work going forward," Gutierrez wrote to assorted Steel Association chairmen and presidents.

A RAW STORY examination of documents related to the "steel strategy" as presented at the Minuteman Web site did not turn up anything untoward.

But Corsi maintains that the "documentation he received is missing key pieces."

"We received very few actual agreements, though many are referenced," Corsi said. "Many of the work plans described lack the work products which the groups say they produced."

Translation: We got nuttin', but we're still soiling ourselves with fear.

Yes, folks, things is mighty desperate in Wingnuttia right now. They are soiling themselves with stuff they pulled out of their own asses.

(Not that they hadn't always, but they're really reaching for it this time.)

October 25, 2006

One sick Pigman

This bit of blather is exactly what we'd expect of the drug-addled Rush Limbaugh.

The Pigman went over the top again, attacking Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's Disease rather severely, as "either off [his] medication or acting" when he appeared in an ad supporting a Democratic candidate in Missouri for her stand on stem-cell research. In the video (available at the link), Fox can be seen wobbling back and forth in spasms characteristic of someone with Parkinson's who isn't OFF his meds, but rather on them so constantly that he now manifests another condition in addition to the Parkinson's--namely, chorea.

Now, granted, the Pigman is no doctor, so he couldn't have known that. But Christ, can't that man at least grow ANY decency, if he can't grow a working brain? Fox may have a bad case of Parkinson's, but at least his thinking faculties are unimpaired. Which is more than one can say for Rush Limbaugh.

I sure hope for his own sake that Limbaugh never develops a condition that might require stem cell research in order to find a cure.

Oh wait...scratch that, he's already got one. He went deaf a few years back as a result of recreational drug use, when he was taking massive doses of prescription painkillers containing oxycodone and hydrocodone! Yes, dittoheads, you've been scammed. Your hero is a junkie and has never been off the stuff, by the sounds of things.

Why? Well, I guess reality was just too painful for him to take anymore. Or maybe he just got sick of hearing his own pompous voice; that can happen. (Happens to me every time I hear him prating. Which is why I don't listen unless, as here, I'm doing it in the combined interests of truth and science. But I do it the smart way--everytime he lies, I take a swig of beer.)

I'm sure those dope-shot auditory nerves could be regenerated by using stem cells. But since he's out there bravely drumming up anti-stem-cell support in the interests of saving the cute little white (sniff) Snowflake Babies, we may never know.

At least, not as long as he's alive.

I guess that's the one bit of poetic justice in all this insanity.

October 23, 2006

Making monkeys of the Minutemen

Not that they needed much help, since they are all flying monkeys already. But the ever obliging Zapatista, Subcomandante Marcos, recently demonstrated just how stupid they are...and how futile it is to try to fence off the US/Mexico border:

Subcomandante Marcos crosses the border without permission

Narco News has some insight into what he's really up to.

October 22, 2006

Scary Thought #3: Fred Phelps had sex. Several times.

With a WOMAN. Which is how he produced enough spawn to fill his so-called church. Don't you pity her? (And don't you pity all those brainwashed, mentally abused offspring even more?)

But here's the kind of sex he'd really love to have, if only he weren't so bunged-up in the head...

Fred Phelps Secretly LOVES Fags!

I bet gay men everywhere are praying he dies BEFORE he gets to do it.

More proof that Chavecito is right about Guatemala

Let's face it...if the US hadn't put Guatemala up to it, why would they come out with this now--when they're ahead in the balloting?

Guatemala's foreign minister has said the country may withdraw its candidacy for a United Nations Security Council amid a row with Venezuela.

Gert Rosenthal said Guatemala may withdraw "in time" - but only if Venezuela did not win the seat.

The UN General Assembly has been holding votes since Monday to choose between the Latin American candidates.

Guatemala has regularly polled the most votes, but neither side has got the two-thirds majority needed.

"We will continue the battle and, in time, when we are absolutely convinced that we cannot continue, we will then meet with our regional group and search for another candidate," Mr Rosenthal told a radio station according to news agency AFP.

Representatives of Latin American countries met on Wednesday to find a compromise in New York but their talks were not conclusive.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela said he would never surrender in what he described as the battle against the United States and its proxy Guatemala.

And it looks like Chavecito was right. Guatemala lacks conviction in itself here, and no wonder. With its sickly human rights record and its long history of US-sponsored dictatorships, death squads and ethnic cleansing, it's a joke candidate at best. The only reason it's gotten as many votes as it has, is because there are that many nations still afraid of the US and the loss of its financial backing.

Freedom to vote one's conscience is a beautiful thing--and who says money doesn't corrupt absolutely? Chavecito was therefore also right when he said the devil had been to the UN before him and the podium still stank of brimstone. He wasn't talking literally, but he was right nonetheless. The devil's trademark is his habit of buying souls, after all. And in the sense that a country's soul is embodied in its UN vote, the devil of the UN has bought up more than a hundred souls via the World Bank, USAID, the NED and the IMF. Chavecito's good nose hasn't steered him wrong yet--read The Chavez Code to see just how much of Venezuela's soul the State Dept. has tried to buy in the past. Maybe the tide is finally turning, and that devilish business initiative is finally going down the tubes--let us pray!

On a personal note: A journalism school classmate of mine used to talk on and on about Guatemala--the poverty, the oppression, the yadda-yadda-yadda. You couldn't have a beer with him and not hear about Guatemala this, that and the other thing. Everytime he did it, I used to groan inwardly, roll my eyes (also inwardly), and think, Oh Lord--Ken's going off on Guatemala again.

Well, now I know where he was coming from. Guatemala is indeed a rat's nest of human misery, has been for a long time, and yes, the US is indeed behind it just as Ken said. That's why I'm gratified to see Chavecito fighting back on humanity's behalf. If he prevails, the people of Guatemala too will win.

Ken, please forgive me for not "getting" it sooner.

October 21, 2006

Death of a President: a review the Right doesn't want you to read

Warning: This entire post is one big, fat spoiler--and I'm not just talking plot. If you really don't want to know what Death of a President is like, stop reading now.

Just saw Death of a President on Google video. It's been available there since October 15. And before anyone screams "piracy", let me tell you that it isn't--if anything, it will promote sales of the film, which got rave reviews at the Toronto Film Festival last month. Why? Because Death is simply brilliant and well worth the money to see in theatres (assuming it gets the broad distribution it deserves), or, better still, buy on DVD. This is a dense, nuanced movie you will want to watch many, many times.

The concept of Death is simple: a fictional movie about the assassination of George W. Bush in October 2007. It is based on an event that not only hasn't happened, but is highly unlikely to happen. It is made in documentary fashion, however, so it looks and feels entirely real. It uses actual news footage of Bush and members of his administration, combining it with fictional "interviews", grainy images from security cameras, and plenty of other authentic-looking faux coverage. This innovative combination creates an effect as shocking as if we were watching the events of 9-11, recapitulated in a 90-minute news special. Thus it manages to avoid the pitfalls of traditional drama, which tends to dwell on the key moments while glossing over the inconvenient little details. And in Death, every least little detail counts--as we eventually learn the hard way. For in this movie, an innocent man is convicted on flimsy but seemingly persuasive evidence, while the assassin takes his crime to the grave before the law can catch up to him.

The film opens with several aerial views of Chicago, set to the voice of a Muslim woman speaking in Arabic, with English subtitles. She is, as we later learn, the wife of the man convicted of the shooting. What she says is the last thing we'd expect to hear, though. Far from applauding either 9-11 or the assassination of Bush, she condemns both as examples of "not thinking or seeing ahead". And she says that if she could speak to the assassin, she would ask him what he was thinking when he pulled the trigger: "How couldn't you think about the consequences of your actions? And what this would do to your son's future? To America? To your country? Did you really not care?"

This opener is just the first of the film's many surprises. Without a narrator to explain it to us, we are left to think the events through for ourselves--and to question everything we see and hear, even when the speaker seems well-meaning, genuine and sympathetic (or not). The conclusions we reach are not the ones we've been primed by the major media to expect, however. Everything we "know", it turns out, is wrong.

In the film, some of those who are most shocked to be caught flat-footed are the ones you'd least expect to be mistaken--the head of the president's security detail, for example. Or the president's speechwriter. (The overconfident Bush, of course, doesn't do anything you wouldn't expect of him; he cockily blunders his way right into the deathtrap per pattern.) These authority figures don't come off as draconian, though; they are all well-intentioned and easy to like on a plain human level, whether you agree with them or not. The police deputy's face doesn't harden immediately when he comes out with what he really feels: "I think there's a new breed of anarchist. These are the people that have the mentality that anything goes, and it's a sad fact but the only way to deal with this kind of individual is with brute force."

It's a chilling statement, but the dissenters he's talking about almost live up to the harsh characterization. There are 12,000 of them--a small crowd, considering that most anti-Bush demos in major cities are at least ten times that size. Most look like the sloppy, fanatical young anarchists we've been told are The Enemy. And their enmity is not portrayed in a sympathetic light. We see their distorted faces in extreme, unflattering close-up as they yell slogans like "Chicago hates Bush!" or "No justice, no peace--fuck the police!" (Some even cheer at the news, later on, that Bush has been shot.) But as unappealing as they may seem, and as confrontational and defiant as they get when the riot police show up to beat on them, none of them turns out to be the killer. Even the one singled out early as a suspect, though he condemns Bush as a war criminal worthy of the death penalty and is just generally arrogant and snotty, is simply not the one. He turns out to be guilty of nothing more than demonstrating aggressively--and wanting to hang an anti-Bush banner.

It's as hard to know exactly who shot J.R.--er, George W.--as it is to even realize at first that he's been shot. We never get a clear view of Bush being hit. Things don't slow down right as the shots ring out. The real-time speed of events shows restraint on the part of the filmmakers--an unwillingness to overdramatize what's going on, which is already dramatic enough. It also adds to the atmosphere of general confusion. This lends it a great deal of verisimilitude. The viewer is caught off guard.

But even the forensics team is ultimately stumped, first by the abundance of forensic evidence, and later by the lack of anything definitive. The gun is soon found, but the serial number is missing and there are no legible fingerprints on it. Hundreds are detained--often on the flimsiest of "probable" causes--in an eerie echo of the very situation that took place after 9-11. One is a Yemeni-American whose father came on a visitor's visa and simply decided to stay. Another is a black Iraq war veteran whose father also served--in Gulf War I. The secret serviceman in charge of security admits that "we looked at Islamic names first" when searching for suspects, but denies it was racial profiling. (In this he may have been telling the truth, since the cocky "anarchist", the first suspect we actually see, is a 28-year-old white man.)

We get another eerie echo of post-9/11 events when a Syrian American, a legal immigrant who was once drafted into the Syrian military, is detained. A fraudulent Syrian "dissident" similar to Ahmed Chalabi makes the rounds of the news-talk shows with a wild tale about Bashar al-Assad and his supposed involvement. The Patriot Act undergoes a new mutation as a result, that makes it even more repressive and abusable than it already is.

Meanwhile, the funeral ceremony for Bush moves ahead. There is the black horse with the reversed riding boot in the stirrup; the fly-past in the "missing man" formation; the flag-draped casket on a gun carriage, escorted into the Capitol rotunda by a military honor guard. If all this looks like you've seen it before, you probably have--it is in fact the footage from the ceremony for Ronald Reagan. The eulogy Dick Cheney gives for Bush is an abbreviated version of the one he gave for Reagan, with the name of the deceased digitally altered to fit.

The scene then cuts from the speechwriter's praise of Bush's "moral commitment" and godliness to a downtown Chicago mosque, just as the muezzin calls the "Allahu Akbar". This mosque, according to the secret serviceman, has a connection to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. The Syrian suspect, Jamal Abu Zikri, attended this mosque, and has been to Pakistan. Is he the one? The FBI investigator seems to think so. And it turns out that Zikri has been to the terrorist camp, but he chickened out when he found out what he was supposed to do as a "defender" of Islam. Nevertheless, Zikri is tried and found guilty, to the dismay of his wife Zahara--the woman whose voice is heard in the opening scenes of the film, talking about how she cried over 9-11 and wishes she could speak to the assassin.

Meanwhile, the FBI investigator has his doubts--he talks of the pressure to perform, and how the lab fitted the results to suit the hypothesis of guilt, rather than the other way around. He resigns in protest. And even the secret serviceman admits he was wrong in his early assumptions. Zikri is not guilty--but he doesn't even have leave to appeal, under Patriot III--the act that supposedly empowers the authorities with more "tools" to investigate. The flawed investigation that results, however, throws doubt onto Patriot III's usefulness as an investigative aid. It seems all the act does is remove the obligation to give every suspect due process.

Then the story shifts to another suspect--Casey Claybon, the black soldier newly returned from Iraq. Casey is disillusioned and bereaved--his brother David, also a soldier in Iraq, died when his Humvee flipped on the road near Mosul. Casey has had marital trouble and drug problems; the day of the assassination, he was in Chicago looking for work--and a fix. Casey is detained as a suspect, then released. As soon as he is let go a few days later, he calls his mother--who is terribly upset and in tears. His father--a decorated major who served in Gulf War I--has been found in his car, dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Casey suspects that it's because he never got over David's death. But the suicide note hints at something more complicating: "...there is no honor in dying for an immoral cause. For lies. I love my country, but I love God and the sons he gave me even more. I must do the right thing by you and by David. George Bush killed our David and I cannot forgive him that."

Casey's mother cannot believe her husband did it, and the authorities are quick to assure Casey that his father wasn't their man. But it turns out that Aloysius Claybon was in possession of a detailed map of Bush's movements that day--the exact motorcade route and security arrangements, right down to the letter. Casey comes forward with the truth, hoping to set the innocent man free, but in the end, Zikri is still in prison, unable to appeal--and the identity of whoever furnished Aloysius Claybon with the documents remains a mystery. Meanwhile, chillingly, Patriot III is now permanent law.

Much fuss has been made about Death, most of it by right-wing Bushniks who are more than happy to condemn the film sight unseen. They haven't watched it, and by god, they don't want you to watch it, either. They claim that it sends a dangerous message, and that the terrorists will win if you see it. That's their loss. It shouldn't be yours, though. The message it sends is indeed dangerous, but not to America; on the contrary, it strikes a blow against the notion that arbitrary measures which grant inordinate power to the president will ever protect anyone--even himself--against terrorism. Thus, it harks back to what Ben Franklin once wrote in Poor Richard's Almanack:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Which, come to think of it, is a message very dangerous to the right-wing view of the world--indeed, perhaps the most dangerous one of all, since it undermines everything the Right is about.

No wonder they don't want you to see this movie.

October 20, 2006

Festive Left Friday Blogging: An early valentine

But still, a very lovely one:

Hugo Chavez's love letter to Venezuela

Oil Wars has a translation, so I won't bother writing my own. (You can also see the TV version of the ad there.)

If I could, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But since I'm stuck here in the Great North (por ahora) and thus ineligible, I can only put up the following vote of confidence:

I Love Hugo Chavez

There, I said it. And if any of you have a problem with it--that's YOUR problem!

Kick ass in December, Chavecito.

10 million votes, and one little cutie!

Hasta la victoria siempre.

October 18, 2006

Nastier than a baboon's butt

Yessirree Bob...that's John Bolton.

John Bolton, the Ass of BushCo at the UN

And this is why I posted that unflattering, but undoubtedly true, picture of him:

After two days and 22 rounds of voting, Guatemala remains ahead of Venezuela in the contest for a seat as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. However, 124 votes are required to win the seat and Guatemala has only averaged 108, Venezuela trailing with an average of only 76. Tired of the marathon voting sessions, delegates decided to suspend voting until Thursday.

With neither country prepared to back down the voting looks set to continue. It could go on for days until either one of them achieves 125 votes or they both accept there is an irresolvable stalemate. In that scenario a compromise candidate would be agreed between all of Latin America's countries.

The irritation is starting to show at the UN. The Venezuelan Ambassador to the United Nations Francisco Arias Cárdenas today continued to blame United States' "blackmail" tactics for Venezuela's inability to take the lead in the contest for the UN Security Council seat.

But he also implicitly pointed the finger at Guatemala. Holding up the front page of El País, the Spanish daily, which showed US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, whispering into the ear of his Guatemalan counterpart, Gert Rosenthal, Arias Cárdenas said, This is the pressure we are fighting, why doesn't Bolton come to this microphone and declare that the United States will remove the pressure, will withdraw the money and then countries will have the liberty to vote their conscience".

And in case you need reminding of why Guatemala can't be allowed this seat, I cordially submit:

By supporting Guatemala to be on the U.N.'s most powerful body, the international community will be abandoning many of the human rights principles the institution was created to uphold, say Guatemalan activists and their allies in the United States and other countries.

"Having failed to solve its own peace and security problems," they said in a letter to the General Assembly, "our country has very little to contribute to solving problems related to international peace and security."

The letter, drafted by the Guatemalan NGO Association for the Study and Promotion of Security and Democracy and the U.S.-based Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala and signed by nearly 90 other organisations, accuses the Guatemalan government of lacking respect for the rule of law and highlights its continued inability to protect human rights defenders.

A second letter, organised by the Guatemalan Peace and Development Network and signed by over 30 groups and 230 notable individuals from 25 countries, said that the "State of Guatemala has allowed, and occasionally has contributed to, the deterioration of the situation of human rights and the proliferation of violence, again making these issues a matter of profound concern for the international community."

And from the same article, a reminder of just why the US has decided to throw its weight behind such an obvious loser:

The U.S. is supporting Guatemala's candidacy because it does not want to see Venezuela, the other candidate, on the Council. The socialist-leaning government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a staunch critic of Washington's role in international politics.

With a General Assembly vote scheduled for next Monday, observers say the U.S. is stepping up pressure on many countries in the region that may support Venezuela.

For example, the U.S. has agreed to sell F16 fighter jets to Chile, but, according to the Los Angeles Times, warns that Chilean pilots "will not be trained to fly them if the government supports Venezuela's bid".

Observers say that under increasing pressure from Washington, many Central American governments are expected to vote for Guatemala. However, the U.S. strategy of "carrots and sticks" has failed to produce similar results in the Caribbean region.

Last July at its summit, the 15-member Caribbean Community, whose region controls 14 votes in the General Assembly, publicly announced that it would opt for Venezuela as the non-permanent member of the Security Council.

In South America, both Brazil and Argentina have also expressed full support for Venezuela, whose leaders have said and time and again that, if elected, they would represent the voices of the global south.

I have a strong sense that Chile, which has abstained in the balloting, would have voted its conscience--that is to say, for Venezuela--had Auntie Condi not talked jive-turkey nonsense to the Chilean ambassador. This whole "would not understand" thing is the most unsubtle arm-twisting. So's the F-16 gambit, which they also tried on Venezuela. Chavecito's response? Learning how to say "fuck you" in Russian, and replacing the aging jets with Sukhois instead.

How lucky for the State Dept. that Chile's economy is considerably weaker than Venezuela's right now, and that they don't have gobs of oil money to put into some Russian language lessons of their own. Not to mention, of course, that hideous coalition that gives the right far more influence than it deserves. The same that's maintaining the dead hand of Pinochet-era laws right now, no less. (Hmmm, I bet that's also why the Chilean economy has never quite recovered to where it was under Allende, before Tricky Dick and Henry Kissinger insisted that it be made to "scream". Will some "libertarian" apologist for fascism kindly explain to me how a repressive state can abruptly turn liberal, but only towards abusive big corporations--and how that is supposed to be good for the economy?)

Now, take what happened with Chile, and multiply it by whatever the number of votes is that Guatemala got. And realize that this groundswell of phony "support" has been building for several years already. Nice to know that old dirty wars die so hard...isn't it?