Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

Junta
retired General Tommy Franks, in an interview with, of all places, Cigar Afficianado, suggests that the U.S. Constitution could not survive the use by a terrorist of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in mainland America, and that the resulting public outcry for security would force, in his words, "a military style of government" to replace it.

Scariest quote from General Franks:

"It's not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace."

Unfiltered Quote of the Day

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. "

- Benjamin Franklin, in a speech he gave at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, on where he thought American democracy was ultimately headed if we adopted the Constitution of the United States of America that had just been approved. That very document, along with it's 27 revisions or, as we say, Amendments, is still in use to this day.

Gore Vidal, in this interview with L.A. Weekly to promote his new book, Inventing A Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, looks around at the current Bush administration and, speaking for Franklin, says "I told you so!"

Diary of a Bad Man
Some of you may recognize the name "C.G. Brown" from the occasional post he's made as a part of Team Macroscope, although I'm sure there are a number of you who would never recognize him on the street as he sports his best "shaken, not stirred, mofo!" look above.

But, in addition to being a fairly shrewd businessman, a visionary poet, and a waaaaay better commuter scientist than I ever even aspired to be, he, apparently, still has alot to get off his chest. And most of the time, he does it to a pretty good beat, too. Therefore, BEHOLD Corregan Brown's Broken Beatnik Blog. Tres` stylish, no?

Passion Play
The New York Post seems to have illicitly gotten their hands on a copy of the latest cut of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" and given it to a broad cross section of folks for review. In looking at this, and other responses from people to the as-yet unreleased film, it seems to me that your level of offense from the film is inversely proportional to how close you are to Gibson's own beliefs on the religious spectrum. It seems that many devote Christians don't seem to see anything in it that would offend or castigate Jews, while a number of Jews who have seen it are VERY worried about the less forward-thinking members of the Christian community taking this film as new marching orders to beat up some Semites.

Since I haven't seen the film, I can't speak on it. Although, as a firm believer in karma, I think the fact that Gibson's Jesus, actor Jim Caviezel, was the SECOND person to be struck by lightning during the course of filming is telling, to say the least. At the end of the day, I'm curious. I want to see it, so I'll probably check it out.

Having said that, the one thing that struck me about all the statements on the film in the Post (and, in other places) is that everyone seems focused on the brutality & violence of the Crucifixion. I find myself reminded of an Easter sermon where the pastor took great pains to illustrate the gory details of Christ's death, as if to say "he endured all that for you, so don't make his death in vain."

Somehow, this all seems to miss the point, to me. The point wasn't that he suffered a horrible, blood drenched, prolonged death. The point was that he died. Period. And was then resurrected. I once had a theory that the whole exercise of the Christ, of the divine becoming incarnate in the flesh, was that God had to comprehend and experience sin in order to abolish it. If sin is a state of being separate from God, God would have to shear off a piece of his or herself in order to comprehend that. Which raises a number of interesting issues for me. First of all, it suggests that, omnipotence does not mean the absence of process. Yes, God may be capable of doing anything, but everything has a procedure to be followed to accomplish it. If God's goal is to save humanity from sin, that very process may have a very specific set of inputs, procedures, outcomes, and, most importantly, timetables.

Also, if God/Jesus could have died in any manner of his or her choosing to experience death (the opposite of omnipresence, perhaps), why choose a public, brutal death? Could it be because it was an image and a story that will never leave our minds?

Anyway, whatever flaws there may be in Mad Max's movie, I think it will at least get a number of Christians to scrutinize their own faith. Like I said, I'm curious.

Horse Whisperers
I love the Classics.

And when I say "Classics", I don't mean Bach & Beethoven. I mean the history & literature of ancient Greece & Rome. And one of the many reasons why is because I love how pervasive a good story can become in a culture, especially if it's old enough.

Consider this: an "odyssey"; your Achilles tendon; a "Cassandra syndrome"; "the face that launched a thousand ships"; "Ajax"; and of course, the obvious one, a "Trojan horse".

All of these memes where first seeded in the gardens of our collective imaginations by one single story - The Iliad, Homer's epic poem where Helen, the insanely hot queen to the Spartan sovereign, Menelaus, runs off with Paris, the prince of the fortified city-state of Troy in Asia Minor (now, I believe today's Turkey). In turn, and in what must be the biggest case of ignoring that whole "don't hate the playa, hate the game" mentality in the history of mankind, Menelaus gets ALL the other Greek city states to join him in a mass invasion of Troy (see the previously mentioned thousand ships) as payback.

Anyway, Warner Bros., in their quest to re-establish themselves as a company that does more than make bad action movies with DMX and Steven Seagal, are giving this story the full-on, post-Gladiator, Hollywood treatment next summer. And I must say, I'm REALLY digging the casting:

* Brad Pitt as obnoxious Greek super-soldier Achilles (and we ALL know how his story ends)
* Orlando Bloom as Trojan pretty-boy Paris
* Brendan Gleeson (who's been in everything from 28 Days Later to Gangs of New York, lately) as player-hatin' Menelaus
* Sean Bean as sneaky Trojan horse architect Odysseus
* Eric Bana as the Trojan champion Hector (poor bastard)
* and Brian Cox as power-hungry Greek "boss of bosses", so to speak, Agamemnon

Between this, Spider-Man 2 and the return or director Roland Emmerich to his "Independence Day"-style stomping grounds in The Day After Tomorrow, next summer's movie slate is sounding extra saucy.

Why We Separate Church and State
So, first things first.

I am a Christian. I was raised as a protestant in the United Methodist Church. I pray daily and I try to read my Bible daily. I believe in God, heavenly grace, and that there's divinity to be found in all life.

So, to me, when Jesus is asked what is the most important commandment, and he replies "to love the lord God with all your heart and to love your fellow man as if he were yourself", I take that as strict marching orders.

Which, in my mind, means, I must respect the right of every individual to come to their own understanding of existence because I defy anyone to tell me that my own personal relationship with God is wrong.

I also take to heart the moment where Jesus tells his disciplines not to wear their religion like a badge of honor. If I may paraphrase, he says something to the effect of "don't stand up and pray loudly in public like the hypocrites do". You don't need a bull horn to preach the Gospels. If you live your life according to the Word, that, in and of itself, will speak volumes. Your very existence as a Christian is all the evangelism necessary.

Which is why it always makes my blood boil when other Christians start demanding that the government do more to promote their faith. Have they forgotten that this country was founded by people who wanted freedom from oppressive religions with state powers like the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches during the Colonial Age? Don't they know we just went to war with a theocracy that gave state power to fundamentalist extremists called the Taliban?

Yes, the founding fathers were very much men of faith. And their faith formed the basis of their sense of equity and justice, which is why the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If faith is a believe in things unseen, than religion is an inherently irrational thing. There is no reasoning with someone's faith. No bargaining. No equity. By putting the government outside the reach of the instruments of faith, they gave everyone the opportunity to come to God on their own terms, not someone else's. It keeps the power to coerce out of the hands of those who may not necessarily be bound by the constraints of the law if they believe their faith calls them to break it.

Why am I saying all this?

Consider, for a moment, the article in the link above: An extremist minister wants to put up a monument in a public square to Matthew Sheppard, a homosexual who was killed in a hate crime, that basically says Sheppard is burning in Hell because he violated God's will.

Do you really want to invite the possibility of putting governmental powers behind this kind of rhetoric by, say, for instance, having teachers leading elementary students in prayer, and this guy is the one sitting on the school board, setting policy?

Just an example that's been on my mind lately.

As far as Matthew Sheppard goes, I'll get into my thoughts on God, the church, and homosexuality at a later date. My short answer on that subject is this: If you think homosexuals are going to Hell because of the verse this guy Phelps quotes in his condemnation of Sheppard, I really hope, for your sake, you don't shave. Ever. Because it's also outlawed in the same section of Leviticus.

Sweet dreams, Shaggy.

Billionaire Soros takes on Bush

Measure for Measure
Does the term "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" ring a bell? Well, if such a thing really did exist, Richard Mellon Scaife, publishing magnate & conservative philanthropist, would unquestionably be the spider at the center of the web. And there in lies the rub about the neo-conservative movement: all those little right wing foot soldiers who campaign & vote against their self-interest are fueled by the funding of the uber-rich like Scaife, who are, unquestionably acting in their own narrow self-interest.

Which is why I love George Soros.

Now, don't get me wrong: Soros, the insanely rich financier behind hedge funds like the Quantum Fund, is very much a ruthless capitalist. An argument can be made that he single-handedly crashed the British currency market in 1993 and made a Billion dollars (yes, "B". "BILLION") in a single day as a result.

But as a man who loves the promise of capitalism & the American dream (let alone his ownwallet) , Soros is pained, I mean, physically ill, about what George Bush is doing to this country.

Soros just gave $5 million to Moveon.org. He's given millions more to other progressive & liberal organizations. All for one, single purpose - to get Bush out of office.

When asked if he would trade his entire fortune (estimated to be about $7 billion) to remove Bush, he replied "If someone guaranteed it".

Forces are gathering, friends. Next November is starting to sound more and more like the Mother of All Battles.

The Bully Pulpit
So, this rather dry article from a P'town scholar on why people tend not to vote in their own interests barely scratches the surface. I agree that, clearly, there are a number of people who simply don't understand how certain politicians and political movements will, in the long run, effect their lives.

But I think the author, like so many in the media, seem to miss the glaringly obvious point.

Despite what people will tell you, most of them actually do assume that politicians are telling them the truth. Contrary to all the verbage that's been spilled on the subject, most voters will simply take an elected official at their word because they believe they don't have the luxury of fact-checking.

So, these folks only vote against their self-interest because they believe their actually voting FOR their self-interest.

They have been lied to.

And this is a concept that really needs to get some more airplay.

There are people, in positions of power in our country, right now, who will get on national TV, and simply lie to the American people.

Yes, there is such a thing as spin, but there is also such a thing as a lie, and I, for one, cannot wait for the moment in next year's debate, when Howard Dean calls President Bush a liar, to his face, on national television.

Rebel Yell
So, fellow blogger John Scalzi has really kicked up a storm on his side of the universe from his series of articles regarding the legacy of the Confederate States of America and the meaning of their battle flag. His basic points?

A. The Confederacy was a fundamentally evil political entity, because the only difference between it's constitution and the Constitution of the United States was that it explicitly asserted the rights of one human being to treat another human being like property.

B. There's no pride to legitimately be found in the symbols of the CSA because it was evil and, at the end of the day, they lost.

C. The South and The Confederacy are not the same thing. There are far more things to be proud of for Americans living in those states than the political insanity that precipitated the Civil War, so Southerners should look into their heritage to find less divisive symbols.

Personally, I agree with just about everything that he said. On the flip side, I also agree with Howard Dean's assertion that the people who find pride in the Stars & Bars cannot simply be dismissed from the body politic. Certainly, there are people who would very much like to put people such as yours truly back in chains so I can bale some of their cotton, but there are also a lot of folks who cling to the identity the Confederate flag gives them while trying to distance themselves from the amorality of the nation it represents.

Which brings me to a larger point, which I will call, for lack of a better term, cultural psychosis. I believe that a community that experiences a traumatic event will have the same reaction as an individual who experiences a traumatic event. Namely, some version of post traumatic stress disorder. You can't tell a rape victim to simply get over it and get on with her life. In the same way, when taken within the context of Hiroshima, no one should be surprised that city-wide destruction is one of the most common recurring themes in Anime. Or, the various & sundry psychological shackles still on the minds of many African-Americans, a full 150 years after the end of slavery.

When you consider that the South is the only segment of the American population that's lost a war on it's own soil, and that it's now an economically struggling portion of the very same nation that burned its cities to the ground..... well, I think you can see where I'm going with this. I'm sure, to some of them, it's like getting a divorce, only to have your ex-husband smack you around and drag you back to the chapel to get remarried at gunpoint.

The point is, there is a trauma there. And, quite honestly, the psychological & historical battles of the Civil War have been fought by the South, albeit in secret, ever since. I think it's long past time to actually have a conversation to get all this junk out into the open and deal with it as a country.

What He Really Thinks
I know there are times when Chris Matthews, the long time politico, syndicated columnist, and host of Hardball, can seem like a Conservative shill. But, let's not forget that Matthews roots are with such Democratic stalwarts as Tip O'Neill & Co.

So, imagine my pleasant surprise to hear about his recent speech at Brown University. The salient points being:
A. The White House's rationale for war in Iraq was totally dishonest.
B. Dick Cheney is the real man behind the curtain.
C. Before Cheney & Co. came up with "The Bush Doctrine", the President had never had a deep thought in his life. Needless to say, he's a little protective about his first one.
D. His personal favorite among the Democratic nominees is, yes, that's right, Howard Dean.

On A Pedestal
I think I've gotten pretty good at ignoring David Blaine. Most of the time that I heard about his various attempts at becoming the New millennium Houdini, I usually thought "what's the point?" and just moved on. I mean, Houdini had a Wolverine haircut and spent his spare time debunking psychics. Who could ever top THAT?

But Blaine's latest stunt, where he locked himself inside a glass box suspended over London for 44 days straight without food caught my attention. Not so much for the feet itself, but for the reactions to it.

For instance, there is a website called "Wake David Blaine", which is a rally point for people who want to take turns keeping Blaine awake by shouting at him for the full 44 days. They even hand out air horns. People have pelted the box with food. One man tried to rip off his air tube. The list goes on and on.

The sense I have is that many of them were angered by the notion that Blaine's stunt could in anyway be construed as magical or miraculous. So, they took it upon themselves to proof that there was no miracle. I wonder if those were folks who loved magic so much that they thought Blaine was defaming it. Or were they people who cannot tolerate the idea of the fantastic at all?

However, as the stunt progressed, the hecklers & saboteurs gave way to more supportive, and eventually, cheering onlookers.

Blaine was in tears by the time he left the booth. He spoke about learning more in the last month than he has in his entire life. And he talked about love.

Personally, I'm just fascinated by the sociology of it all. One man stands up and does something out of the ordinary. Almost immediately, a whole host of people rise up in reaction to him, both for and against.

Is leadership really that easy?

Changing The Game
So, unlike any number of Protestants out there, I actually happen to like Pope John Paul II. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work that man has accomplished in God's name, and I have a special reverence for the Catholic Church because, hey, it's the wellspring from which the rest of the Christian world flows.

But sometimes the Vatican does things that are just downright evil.

And I'm not talking about the excesses of the Borgas or the Crusades or anything nice and medieval like that.

I mean today, right here, right now, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Three.

According to the BBC, among other news outlets, The Vatican is instructing its missionaries in Africa to tell the local population that condoms have tiny holes in them that allow the AIDS virus to pass from one person to the next in the course of sex. In other words, they're saying that condoms don't stop the transmission of STDs so don't use them.

In fact, they're actually claiming to have scientific evidence to support that fact.

If there was scientific research to support such a claim, it would be plastered all over the Western press. If the Vatican really had such evidence, why are they only telling people where the AIDS epidemic is wreaking havoc?

It's a lie.

A bold faced lie intended to discourage the use of condoms in a misguided attempt to curb recreational sex, and it's targeted at the people who rely on the church the most - the world's poor and sick and disadvantaged.

It's a lie that's going to cost MILLIONS of people their lives, while the Church is claiming to save their souls.

I have no other word to use to describe it other than "evil".

Moreover, I think it's just the latest example of how conservative elements in the world, when faced with scientific evidence & procedure that refutes their narrow view of life on planet Earth, are now adopting the trappings of science, minus the actual procedures, to perpetuate lies that support the status quo.

They've lost the argument on it's merits, so they've just degenerated into an "Is not!"/"Is, too!" shouting match.

They Know
Greg Theilman is the former director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs for the State Department under Colin Powell. As you might surmise from his title, his office was directly responsible for evaluating intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD programs.

In this interview for 60 Minutes, Theilman says that he'd known for months prior to the invasion that there was no evidence to support the Bush administration's claims that Iraq proposed an imminent threat.

And he told Powell, who should have told the President.

Now, while this is just the latest example of White House lies by omission & exaggeration, I think it's part of a larger trend in our culture. (see above)

Willie Lynch is Dead (1712?-2003)

There is No Willie Lynch
OK, this is something I've believed for years, so I'm glad to see someone has finally done a little research to support my theory.

For those of you who don't know, allegedly, there's a copy of a speech written by a slave holder named Willie Lynch to instruct his peers on ways to foster disunity among the slaves as a means of nonviolent pacification. The basic idea is that, if you're too busy fighting your brother, you won't worry about the boot of the oppressor on your neck.

OK, so, for the moment, let's ignore the rather absurd image of the keynote speaker at the Colonial Slavedrivers Convention.

This gentleman, Dr. William Jelani Cobb of Spelman College, points out the obvious inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and anachronisms in the letter itself in this column.

But, at a deeper level, when have young people ever needed someone to tell them to hate old people? When have men ever needed to be formally instructed to hate women? And when have people ever needed a coach to instruct them how to hate people who look different than them? The crux of the Willie Lynch argument is that, if it wasn't for the damned white man, all Black people everywhere would all just love each other and work in spiritual-humming unison towards our common goal.

I'm sorry, but that's simply rediculous. All you have to do is look at the example in the master's house itself. Even rich white people can't get along with each other. As long as human beings have individual & conflicting needs, there will never be a united hive mind where we all agree to do our part & not hate on each other. It's human nature.

But this gets at the larger problem with conspiracy theorists. I think alot of people would much rather that there actually was an all-powerful boogeyman who has some massive document stored on his laptop called toying_with_everyone_elses_lives_for_my_amusement.pps. The idea of a malavolent controller can be far more comforting than the alternative: a world where, sometimes, bad things happen that are completely outside of anyone's control. After all, a bad daddy is better than no daddy at all, right?

Willie Lynch is a fairy tale. Rather than expending our energy assigning blame, maybe everyone (black, white, etc.) should devote their time to doing the things WE ALREADY KNOW WE"RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, i.e. treating members of the opposite sex with at least courtesy to give folks the chance to earn our respect; honoring the elders who've been where you're going while respecting the young for their fresh energy; KNOWING (and I don't mean just saying it, KWOWING) that you have intrinsic value because you are a living, breathing human being and not worrying whether some other person is more valuable than you because they're lighter/darker/taller/shorter/skinnier/fatter/etc.

To Hell with Willie Lynch.

Keep working on yourself.

Ole!
There's something wrong with me. I must be a bad person. Because, as much as I love baseball, I think I may love baseball fights even more.

So, the sight of Don Zimmer, the New York Yankees' septegenarian bench coach with a metal plate in his head from being hit with a fastball in his youth, charging asshole Red Sox ace Pedro Martinez during a team brawl, is, well...

It's funny.

Alright. I said it. It's freaking hilarious. I mean, I can just imagine Zimmer just sitting on the bench. Just waitin'. "As soon as these benches clear, his ass is MINE!"

It's rediculous. But I love it. This series just keeps getting crazier. Personally, I'm waiting for Mel Stotlemeyer to crack Nomar Garciaparra with a folding chair. Then, my baseball life will truly be complete.

In case you haven't noticed, there's going to be alot more baseball posts for the next two weeks.

Karmic Justice
The only thing worse than being an Orioles fan in Dodger country, is being an Orioles fan in Yankee country. I had the distinct displeasure of watching 12-year old Jeffrey Maier pull a fair ball out of play during the 1996 ALCS between the Yanks & the O's. The cheating New York umps ruled it a home run, allowing the pinstripe mafia to win the game, the series, and, eventually, the world championship.

Jeffrey Maier.

I almost could have gone to that game. I would have been in the bleachers, not far from that kid. And I can tell you this: any lynching that I might receive at the hands of rabid Bronx baseball fans would have been well worth the satisfaction of snapping that little punk's neck like a twig for robbing Cal Ripken of his best chance to retire with a 2nd World Series ring.

Sorry. Did I think that or write that? My bad. That was the rabid Orioles fan in me. I try not to let it out too much. It's not pretty.

Anyway, if there's any justice in the world, last night's little mishap in the Yankees/Red Sox game was just the beginning of the cosmic chickens coming home to roost for those S.O.B.s.

Go Sox!

Day of the Locusts
The average person who voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger last night was a white Republican woman with a college education whose household made at least $50,000 a year.

Rich, educated white women made a man with a 30 year history of sexual misconduct, but who has a great body and makes fun movies, into the governor of the 5th largest economy in the world.

Most blacks & hispanics basically stayed home. Most of the poor stayed home. The people with the most to gain or lose through their dependence on government programs, decided to leave the decision of the upper class.

That noise you hear is the sound of America's caste system fusing into place.

Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil

What Do You Mean There's No Oil?!?!?
OK, this just seems more and more insane as time goes on.

According to this NY Times report, the White House had commissioned a report months before the war to find out exactly how much money they could get from Iraqi oil sales.

Let's not even get into how this flies in the face of all that "it's not about oil" trash they were talking.

The point is, the report, which came out MONTHS before we invaded Iraq, told them that the Iraqi oil industry was in such disrepair that, without enormous capital investment, there was no way it could cover the costs of rebuilding the country.

And yet Paul Wolfowitz constantly said that Iraq would pay for itself through oil.

What possible reason would they have for doing this, then, in the face of all the evidence telling them why this was a bad idea? Are Bush & Co. really THAT stupid? Is it really about transfer of wealth, and to hell with the Iraqi people? Or were they looking for a really spectacular way to justify bankrupting the government?

George W. Bush's Medieval Presidency

Anachronistic Quote of the Day

"So it is written. So it shall be done."

-Ramses (Yul Brenner) in The Ten Commandments

Just a vivid example of a head of state who is driven by what he wants, as opposed to the empirical evidence of what he actually has (e.g. locusts, rivers of blood, killer hail, and a country full of dead firstborns).

As Neal Gabler points out in this L.A. Times editorial, denial was a fundamental element of monarchy rule back in the bad old days. It didn't matter what was happening, or what the people wanted. All that mattered was what the king thought.

Stupid, right?

Which is why a bunch of guys back in 1776, children of The Enlightenment, rationalism & the value of empirical evidence, thumbed their nose at King George III and decided they'd try making a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

It's times like this that I wish George W. Bush had been a better student, or had at least bothered to pay attention in history class. At least then he'd know that he was perverting the system instead of thinking that he, himself, is the living embodiment of the will of the people.

The moral of this story: the President is a REPRESENTATIVE of the people. How the Hell do you know what the people want if you don't read the paper and don't listen to polls?

Oh, I forgot. God tells him.

Nevermind.

Pantheon

Pantheon
I remember, back when I was embroiled with the whole discussion about Harry Belafonte accusing Colin Powell of being a house slave, my brother & I bantered back & forth about the need for role models. At the time, I really scoffed at the notion. I couldn't think of any living, breathing person that I'd idolized & tried to emulate as a child (Captain Kirk most certainly didn't count).

But an odd confluence of news helped me to realize that, it wasn't that I didn't have role models, but, in fact, they were so important to me that I'd taken them for granted. They were a part of who I am.

So, after doing a bit of excavation, here are some of my own personal heroes.


Kurt Schmoke
Kurt Schmoke was the first elected Black mayor of my hometown, Baltimore, MD. We'd actually had a Black mayor just prior to Schmoke, namely Clarence "Du" Burns, an old-school veteran of big city machine politics who inherited the job when the current mayor, William Donald Schaffer, became the Governor of Maryland in the middle of his seemingly billionth term. Schmoke, a Yale man (nobody's perfect) and former Rhodes scholar, was intelligent & urbane, a stark contrast to Clarence Burns, who butchered the King's English and barely had a high school education. Needless to say, as a nerdy Black kid in a good old boy school in a crumbling urban city, Mayor Schmoke was an inspiration. He took a real drubbing in the press for advocating the legalization of hardcore drugs, but, given the urban disaster that was the crack epidemic of the late 80's & early '90's, I know the mayor saw what a joke the drug war was. After over a decade in city hall, Mayor Schmoke is now the dean of the law school at Howard University. He's also been rumored to have been seen on the campaign trail with fellow Yale classmate, Howard Dean.

You know I had to work his name in here SOMEWHERE, didn't you?


Kweisi Mfume
OK, so, first, disclaimer: this brother is family. My brother's wife is his cousin and they were raised like siblings. But I doubt he would recognize me outside of the presence of my family.

Having said that, most people know him as the current President of the NAACP, or perhaps as the former head of the Congressional Black Caucus. To me, he was my Congressman. In many ways, Mfume is the exact opposite of Kurt Schmoke. While Schmoke was the golden boy of Baltimore City College, en route to the Ivy League, Mfume was running the streets and staying in trouble under his slave name of Frissel Gray. He eventually found some sense and, apparently, the motherland, at Morgan State before venturing into a career of community activism & politics. My first memory of Mfume was when he ran for congress against St. George Cross, a fatter, shadier, and less-eloquent Baltimore version of Al Sharpton. Cross tried to derail Mfume's campaign by revealing to the public that he had several children out of wedlock. Little did he realize that massive portions of the Baltimore City populace have several children out of wedlock themselves, and they were more offended that Cross thought it was a bad thing. Mfume won in a landslide. If he wanted, he could have become mayor after Schmoke stepped down in a landslide, but he felt his energies were best devoted to a national agenda at the NAACP. Of course, the fact that the NAACP HQ is in Northwest Baltimore probably didn't hurt either. He grew up as a ne're-do-well in a bad neighborhood in a bad city and was able to recontruct himself from the grown up into a titanic figure on the American scene. Mfume, to me, is a living embodiment of what is possible.


Eddie Murray
Baltimore had been a one-sport town years before the Colts left like thieves in the night on a Mayflower moving truck. To put it mildly, they sucked. And, since losing to Broadway Joe & the Jets in 1969, they'd only been back to the Super Bowl once.

In that same stretch of time, the Baltimore Orioles had been to the World Series five times, and won twice. The Orioles ruled the city, and, long before anyone had ever even heard of any of those guys named Ripken, the king of Memorial Stadium was Eddie Murray.

Talk about a black icon. Eddie didn't talk to the press. Eddie didn't smile. He didn't even like it when the crowd went crazy and chanted his name "Ed-die! Ed-die! Ed-die! Ed-die!". The brother just went out there and hit home runs. Just a pissed-off Black man in a tighty-whitey '70's baseball uniform who absolutely did not give a damn that his afro did not fit inside the cap with the cartoon bird on it. What, you got something to say? I didn't think so. Man, when I was 10 years old, watching the O's smack around the Phillies in the Fall Classic, Eddie was better than Shaft in Africa.


Benjamin Banneker
I pretty much summed up my feelings about Benjamin Banneker in an old Macroscope post entitled "The Brother Who Trumped Einstein". But, just for the whirlwind version: Banneker was a free black farmer in a slave state a century before the Civil War who taught himself mathematics so that he was able to public his own almanacs, predict a theory that, in many was, was a precursor to special relativity, do the surveying & design of Washington D.C., and even attempted to predict his own death. I was a little black boy in a Gifted & Talented Math program in the same slave state when I read this. I LOVED this man.

Kicking Ass

Kicking Ass
I can't make this stuff up. After receiving a second mail from the Republican National Committee asking for my support (no, I have never voted for nor registered as a Republican), I decided to see what my silent friends the Democrats were up to, and maybe encourage them to try some direct marketing to their constituency instead of sitting on their, er, ass. So I get to the web site at www.democrats.org and I see that the Democrats have started a blog called. . . Kicking Ass. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know I'm annoyed by the fact that between me one of my friends in particular, we have been contacted approximately 7 times by the Republican party and not once by the Democrats. You want me? Don't count on my black-ness or my labor-ness or my liberal-ness. Come get me. That's what Dean's doing.

-C. G. Brown

SOMEONE PLEASE SHUT HIM UP!
So, any true fan of Ian Fleming's seminal superspy knows that James Bond's cover when he travels around the world is that he's a business executive for Universal Exports, a fictitious company that serves as a front for Her Majesty's Secret Service.

In the same vein, Joseph Wilson's wife, a real-life intelligence agent under non-official cover, used to travel on missions regarding WMDs under the cover of being an energy expert in the employ of a company without a real office or telephone - i.e. a facade to hide her real employers, the C.I.A.

Now, why do I know about this?

BECAUSE ROBERT NOVAK NAMED THE FREAKING COMPANY ON CNN!

Novak, in an attempt to prove that this whole scandal is just a left-wing witchhunt, looked up the Wilson's political contributions, and saw that Wilson's wife gave to Gore's 2000 campaign under the name of said company. Novak went on to say that, since it wasn't a real company, she clearly wasn't undercover because, as far as he knew, they're not supposed to give the names of a false employer.

So, now, the North Korean, Iranian, Pakistani, and Libyan intelligence services can see if there were any other American citizens doing business in their countries for this company and can reasonably assume than those people are CIA operatives and any natives associated with them are probably spies for the Americans. Those agents will get kicked out, and those people will be killed. And the CIA will have to retire that company front and start a new one.

Is he such a stupid conservative lap dog that he doesn't understand he's jeopardizing national security every time he opens his mouth?!?!?!

Arnold Unplugged - It's hasta la vista to $9 billion if the Governator is selected

The New Puppet
For those of you who are considering voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger next Tuesday, consider this:

Gray Davis is trying to get the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to force Enron and the other power companies to give back to California the $9 billion dollars they sucked out of the state during the energy crisis. And Cruz Bustamante is the plantiff in a lawsuit against Enron for the same debacle. Also for $9 billion dollars.

In May of 2001, one month after Bustamante's suit was introduced into the courts, Arnold had a meeting with Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, here in Los Angeles.

Did I mention that next year's budget shortfall in California is expected to be about $8 billion dollars?

So, since the governor & the lt. governor are the the guys making all the noise about the energy crisis, Bush's people at FERC are pushing for an out-of-court settlement for roughly a 3rd of the money they stole from the state.

Gray Davis won't go for it. Suddenly, there's a campaign to recall Davis.

Cruz Bustamante won't go for it. Suddenly, Bustamante is being smeared for taking money from Native Americans.

But everyone who's at least read this far has to know that Arnold is going to go for it, hook line and sinker. They make him governor, he OK's the theft of $9 billion dollars from the State of California.

PLEASE read this article by Greg Palast.

And then, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE vote NO on the Recall.

Fiscal Doomsday in the Offing (washingtonpost.com)

That's not the horizon ahead.....
David Broder is a syndicated political columnist for the Washington Post, and, as far as pundits go, he's pretty tame. I think he's just to old & conservative to get too partisan in either direction. I tend to read him when I want to get the voice of reason's perspective.

And now, even Broder is saying that Bush's tax policy has engineered a time bomb in the American economy that's going to go off a decade from now. Quoting a consortium of three bi-partisan economic research groups, Broder states:

if current policies remain, balancing the budget by 2013 will require raising individual and corporate income taxes by 27 percent, cutting Social Security by 60 percent, cutting defense by 73 percent or cutting all programs -- except defense, homeland security, Social Security and Medicare -- by 40 percent.

Fresh Air: Friday - October 3, 2003

The Other Side
Grover Norquist is the head of Americans for Tax Reform, and organization that, as you might have guessed, thinks we pay too much in taxes and devotes tons of time, money, & influence to reduce the Federal tax rates.

Grover Norquist has also said he really wants to reduce the size of government until it's small enough to, "drown in the bathtub".

Hmmn.

Norquist is, in many ways, the mastermind behind the Bush tax policy.

Here, in an interview he conducted on NPR this week, Norquist states such gems as
the American people and The Government are two separate and antagonist entities. I guess he missed that whole "of the people, by the people, for the people" business, huh?

I'm always a little scared of really rich guys who think the government does too much. I wonder what's illegal now that Grover & his buddies really want to do. Paul Krugman seems to have an idea, and it's not pretty.

Who's Sordid Now?

Feeding Frenzy
So, the President wants $87 Billion dollars to rebuild Iraq.

But what does that money actually pay for?

Sure, most if it is intended to go for military operations and such, but, as many of you know, an enormous chunk of military operations and services in the field are now being handled by private companies.

Companies like Bechtel & Haliburton. Companies that got contracts that were not submitted to the public for competitive bids, which basically means these company's get to charge the Pentagon as if they were a monopoly power.

How much do you think this bag of money Bush could be shrink if other firms were allowed to challenge Haliburton?

And let's not even get into the Iraq reconstruction budget. Consider this: An Arabic cell phone company set up towers in Iraq after Bagdad fell. They actually had the phones working for a while. Then Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority kicked them out and offered Iraq' cell phone market to Worldcom without a competitive bid.

Excuse me, that's right. Worldcom. As in "Biggest Bankruptcy As A Result of Corporate Malfeasance In History" Worldcom. Or, more importantly, "Has No Experience Setting Up A Wireless Network, Let Alone In A War Ravaged Country" Worldcom.

Talk about "transfer of wealth".

National Security? Reshaping the Middle East? Yeah, right. This whole thing is the biggest f'n boondoogle the world's ever seen.

United Press International: Coalition losing war for Iraqi arms

Dealing In Lead
Part of the problem with Iraq is that it's one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. And I'm not talking about Scuds and WMDs. I mean everybody and their grandma has at least an AK-47, and more than a few people have a working knowledge of explosives and small ordinance.

In response, the US Military and the Coalition Provisional Authority have initiated a sort of Iraqi gun buy-back program to try to make the streets safer.

The only problem is, Saddam's agents, the foreign terrorists, and all the international gun runners who flocked to Iraq once Bagdad collapsed all offer more money for these weapons to the civilians than the Americans are offering.

So the resistance stays heavily armed, in part, because the bad guys are out-bidding the U.S.

This would almost be laughable if it wasn't for the stench of dead bodies that permeates every strand of news that comes out of that country.

Fingerprints
So, as the President's situation grows increasingly tenuous, I've found myself "digging in the crates", so to speak, pulling all sorts of goodies out of the Macroscope archives that now have relevance in today's climate.

Case in point, last December, I made a post entitled "The Man Behind The Curtain", about an Esquire article by Ron Susskind that gives the skinny on Karl Rove, the President's Svengali. At the time, I just wanted to point out what a ruthless and scary guy Rove had managed to become without an actual official job in the White House. But, lo and behold, after scanning the Howard Dean blog, I came across this little quote in that December article:

Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.

Hmn.

Karl Rove.

Robert Novak.

Planted negative story.
Where have I heard THAT before?

CIA seeks probe of White House

Catching Up
Months back, in a post entitled "The Plumbers Would Be Proud", I talked about how Joseph Wilson, the last US ambassador to Iraq (who was decorated with, I believe, the congressional medal or honor or something like that for giving people refuge inside the US embassy during the Gulf War) was sent by the White House to confirm the "Iraq bought Uranium from Niger" claims. He told them it was bogus back in 2002, and when Bush & Co. tried to say they didn't know better, Wilson went public and said that he'd told them it was bogus. Well, not long after that, SOMEBODY in the White House told Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times that Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent specializing in WMDs, and Novak printed as much in his column.

In other words, the White House blew the cover of one of our own agents to get back at her husband.

Well, now, it looks like George Tenet and the CIA have had enough. According to this MSNBC article, they're asking the Justice Department to investigate exactly who did the outing, because, my friends, that is a violation of at least two Federal laws.

Once again, the only reason I know about this is because Howard Dean made a statement about it today. But mark my words, Dean's on Face the Nation tomorrow morning and this is going to be all over the news come Monday.

This is going to be huge. To quote Joseph Wilson "I hope to see Karl Rove lead out of the White House in handcuffs."

Balance Sheets
As part of the $87 billion dollars they want to spend in Iraq, the White House is planning to devote $878 million towards providing health care to needy Iraqis.

Uhm. I'd like to point out that there are something like several million AMERICCAN citizens without health care.

This is just one of the many obscene disparities present in Bush's current policies, as outlined here by the Washington Post.

Quote of the Day

“A true Patriot Act is not born out of fear, but out of trust; it is not born out of division, but out of community; it is not born out of suspicion, but out of faith in each of us."

- Howard Dean, at a rally today in Boston, in a speech entitled "Democracy, Freedom, Action".

Hate for Hate's Sake
OK, I admit it.

I hate George W. Bush. He's a liar and an elitist who has tricked the majority of Americans into thinking he has their best interests in mind when he's really raiding the fortunes & prestige of this country to line the pockets of the richest 1% of the population while wrapping himself in a false cloak of Christian piety.

I know lots of people on the opposite side of the political spectrum hate Bill Clinton. They think he's a liar and an elitist who had tricked the majority of Americans into thinking he has their best interests in mind he's really giving their hard earned money away to people who don't deserve it while simultaneously receiving adulterous oral sex.

See how, in this article from the New Republic, why we all hate at least one of these guys, although some hate is more legitimate than others.

The Bad Guy Returns
I don't think I fully appreciated the phenomenon that is the 1983 remake of Scarface, written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian DePalma, until I went to see it on the big screen.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the film's release, so Universal & Focus Features is releasing a special edition DVD and a digitally remastered 35 mm print of the film in select theatres around the country. Here in L.A., it's playing for a few more days as the late show at the Cinerama Dome (imagine sitting inside a golf-ball the size of a small stadium, with a curved, three pane movie screen) at Arclight Cinemas.

Now, I've seen the movie before, and I love it, but I hadn't seen it with a crowd before. Last Saturday night, waiting in this sea of predominantly Latino teenagers & Gen-Xers, where an usher only allowed a handful of people into the theatre at the time, where LOTS of these kids wore Scarface T-shirts (mind you, most of them where only a couple of years older than the movie itself), I really felt like I was going to an Al Pacino rock concert. It was surreal.

I overheard one guy say to his girlfriend, "Aww, see! I knew I should have worn my Scarface shirt. Or at least the black one."

"At least the black one."

Everytime I see a show like Cribs go behind the scenes in the home of some rapper or Black pro athlete, the ALL have at least one picture of Tony Montana on the wall.

But, underneath the drugs and the violence and the rediculous financial excess of the film, there is a fundamental statement about the American dream, and it's deeply cynical.

Or, to quote Scarface himself, after he's finally acquired the outrageous wealth that he craves:

"Is this all there is? Eating? Drinking? Fucking? Sucking? Your 50. You got a bag for a belly. You got tits, that need a bra, they got hair on 'em. You got a liver, with spots all over it, and your eatin' dis fuckin' shit and lookin' like these fuckin' rich mummies...."

Something Tony never understood until the very end: Money does not necessarily guarantee you power. Observe Microsoft.

Anyway, this NY Times article touches a little bit on the pervasiveness of this film in hip-hop culture, which has it's own problems with capitalist excess.

Personally, I just wanted an excuse to put a picture of Tony Montana up on my blog. Guilty as charged.

Let 'Em Loose

They Only Want Me For My...


Fancy that my first contribution to Macroscope has something to do with the aesthetics and iconography of that classic figure from black culture...the pimp. Perhaps I'm late into this game, but I only recently heard of this new venture of Nelly's. Pimp Juice. And I must admit that I have mixed feelings about it.

Just to rewind things a bit here, I suppose I should first acknowledge my mixed feelings about Nelly in general. When he first came on the scene with "Country Grammar", I didn't really have strong feelings either way, and was as likely as anyone else to turn up the car radio a bit when it came on. Of course, with subsequent offerings like "#1", I began to feel like he was just a little too comfortable with his "pop" location in the mix of things for me to personally stomach. Then, I heard "Pimp Juice". And man...I loved it. There may be a host of reasons why...personal issues at the time, a funky guitar riff in the hook that I could really get my mind into, whatever. But if nothing else, it at the very least got me to publicly stop hating on this cat, and allow him to comfortably settle somewhere into my landscape of black culture.

So, when I heard that an "energy drink" was being marketed under the name Pimp Juice, I didn't quite know how to react, particularly in the context of my mixed feelings about it's front man. My first reaction was to be upset about yet further appropriation of cultural iconography by, well, the Man.

But then, I began to read the criticism of Pimp Juice from what I guess is the official Anti-Pimp Juice-Brigade. Featuring the likes of such notables as Clarence Page (okay, maybe that was just hateful...read up on Mr. Page and draw your own conclusions). And now I'm quite confusedly caught up trying to decide whether my enemy's enemy is my friend. Because on the one hand, I'm not quite sure that I like the undertones of why a large commercial beverage concern would want to use the imagery of a black pimp to sell products to black people. But on the other hand, the religious right is almost always wrong (as far as I'm concerned) on these type of issues. Which isn't to say that there are some valid points on their side of the argument. Women being physically, sexually and emotionally abused by pimps (or men responding to some sort of pimp-influenced masculinity) is surely not a good thing. And alcoholism (brushing aside the minor point that Pimp Juice isn't actually an acloholic beverage for a moment) is certainly a problem in the black community.

But is there any denying that the figure of the pimp is deeply intertwined with whatever black masculinity is? Not to say that it's defining of black masculinity, but in some sense, should not the pimp be regarded in the same way as the jazz musician, the athlete, and the rapper? Complicated for sure, certainly reactionary in part, but subversive in the context of a would-be hegemonic white-masculine power structure nonetheless. And not to give Nelly too much credit for this, but did anyone actually listen to the lyrics of the original song? Sure, they don't totally make sense, but it should be plain to the casual observer that the figure of the pimp embedded in these words is somewhat more nuanced than the one that his critics are reacting against.

Which brings me back to my point of departure. Perhaps I'm overidentifying with Nelly here (g-d forbid), but it seems to me that in some sense this is a microcosm of the struggle to define a black masculine identity. On the one had you have a (presumably?) largely white economic interest trying to market black male identity in a somewhat irresponsible way. And on the other you have a reactionary element of the black community struggling so hard to prove that they're not different that they miss the opportunity to define themselves. And in the middle you have the one creative person in the mix, who (though he quite possibly does not) might actually have something new and interesting to say.

Let 'em loose.

Headshaking Colloquy of the Day

"Do you know, Charlie, why we're hated so much?"

"I really don't know, Mr. President"

"Because they're evil, Charlie. Because they're evil."

- George W. Bush and Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY). Rangel has been trying to introduce legislation to re-instate the draft, under the assumption that the President & Co. will be less eager to send their own children to go get the evildoers and maybe put a little more thought into this thing.

And the moral of this story? "It's easy to be a crusader when your blood isn't being shed."

Incidentally, Rangel, a decorated Korean War vet, is a strong supporter of Wesley Clark for President.

Soft Light
This came to my attention through Warren Ellis's mailing list, Bad Signal
A Softer World is a series of poems set to pictures from a couple in the UK, and I think every single one of these has it's own exquisite beauty. Enjoy.

Playing To Win
Howard Dean wants to raise $5 million in the next 10 days.

For just a little perspective, consider this: Dean raised a total of $7 million for the entire 2nd quarter of 2003.

Now, I could rattle off a bunch of statistics on how many online supporters Dean has in his rolodex (412,000 at last count), or in how many states he's leading in the polls (such as Iowa & New Hampshire), or how many other candidates are so scared of Dean that he's the only one who's taken significant fire in the debates (Dick Gephardt has an entire website, Dean Facts, devoted to cutting on Dean. Doesn't he have better ways to spend his time, like explaining how he lead congressional Democrats to vote for the Iraq war resolution that he now calls a miserable failure? But I digress...).

Instead, I'm going to tell you why I'M supporting Howard Dean.

I hate sacred cows.

But I hate their worshippers even more.

One of my all time favorite basketball players was John Starks when he played for the New York Knicks. During their heyday in the early to mid '90's, the rough & tumble Knicks of Charles Oakley, Patrick Ewing, Anthony Mason and the like had legendary battles with Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls. What I loved about the Knicks, and Starks in particular, was that they had absolutely no respect for Jordan. Yes, MJ is probably the greatest player in the history of the NBA. But, everybody in the league just rolled over for him. Bowed down to him. Couldn't wait to be in a poster where he dunked on them.

And I always used to say to myself, "Are the other guys in this league trying to win the F'n championship or not?!?!?" Why not just hand the goddamn trophy to Jordan at the beginning of the season? Players, coaches, commentators. They all treated Jordan like he was about to turn water into wine.

All except The Knicks. The Knicks wanted the championship and were absolutely not going to play dead for the Bulls. And every playoff series, Starks drew the awful task of guarding against Jordan. Did Starks make excuses? Did he play back on his heels and give Jordan respect?

No. He dunked on Jordan's neck and said "Fuck you! I want to be the champion, motherfucker!"



Starks wanted to win. And he played like it.

Now if only Charles Smith had that same attitude. But that's a different discussion.

George W. Bush has pulled the Democratic Party's punk card for almost 3 years. He's made people ashamed of wanting things like support for the working poor, respect for the bill of rights, international sovereignty & cooperation, fiscal responsibility, and the like. The whole party has been cowering the corner, afraid to face the electorate with what they really believe. Afraid to even face their own constituents on what they're even fighting for.

Case in point: Gephardt, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards all voted for the Iraq war resolution. And, except for possibly Lieberman, they all did it because they were scared. And these people actually expect me to vote for them as my leader?

And Wesley Clark? Let's just say that asking for your mommy in the middle of a press briefing doesn't exactly give me confidence either, Mr. Supreme Commander.

And let's be honest: the other folks in the race are NOT running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
Bob Graham is running for Vice-President.
Carol Mosley-Braun is running for Governor of Illinois.
Al Sharpton is running for Jesse Jackson's job (whatever that is).
Dennis Kucinich running for the Green Party or Reform Party nomination (watch what I tell you. This guy is not going away...)

Dean is the ONLY candidate who has stood up to Bush from the very beginning. In an article in the Boston Globe, he told a close friend that he wouldn't be able to live with himself if he didn't run. Dean is the ONLY candidate who's taken a stand on principles, taken the slings & arrows, and still managed to avoid personal attacks on his opponents. Dean is the ONLY candidate who's not only asking to restore the sense of community in this country, he's actively recruited his supporters to engage directly in the country's problems without even being in office.

Dean wants the America we dream about. And he's not afraid to say so.

And that means, when it comes to George W. Bush, you call a spade "a spade".

Personally, I'm relishing the idea of a Dean/Bush debate. Because there is eventually going to be a point where they will say two things that are mutually exclusive. Bush's version of what's happened in America since 2000 simply cannot co-exist with Dean's version.

At some point in that debate, it will be undeniable that ONE of them is lying.

And then the real fun begins.

Now, if you like what's happened since the 2000 election, go ahead and support the President. You may also want to cash in all your saving & treasury bonds while you're at it, because, if the government finances continue on the same path, those things won't be worth the paper their printed on.

But if you want a better country, the country we all THOUGHT we were living in, can I suggest giving a few dollars to Dean for America?

Doomed To Repetition
Max Cleland is a Vietnam war veteran who lost both legs and an arm as a result of that conflict.

He also was, up until the 2002 election, a U.S. senator from Georgia. Needless to say, Vietnam is a living, breathing memory for him each and every day of his life, so it was with great conviction that he voted against authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq.

Cleland's opponent in the election, Saxby Chambliss, the President's hand-picked candidate, ran a campaign where they painted this man who gave 3 out of 4 limbs for his country as a coward and a traitor for not supporting the Iraq war resolution.

Cleland lost by 7%.

Supporters of Wesley Clark, take note. Your candidates credentials are not necessarily enough to drown out the lies.

In this op-ed Cleland wrote for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he draws a direct line between Donald Rumsfeld and Robert MacNamara, LBJ's Secretary of Defense who lobbied the President to follow a policy that led to the needless deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. My brother, a solid Republican military guy, says MacNamara should burn in Hell for what he did. And he's not too keen on Rumsfeld either.

Supports of President Bush, take note: Don't assume the Army will let your President needlessly march them to their deaths and still vote for him in droves by absentee ballot next year.

Ultimately, Cleland's predicament drives home a point about Vietnam. The military learned their lessons there all too well. Vets as diverse as Wesley Clark, Colin Powell, John Kerry, Anthony Zinni, & Cleland have all voiced various levels of opposition to the way Iraq was handled. Only the draft dodgers like Bush, Cheney, Rumfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. who want to prove how tough they are without firing a shot themselves are all pumped up to "bring it on".

Repugnant.

Revolution

So, you've heard me mention Paul Krugman, New York Times economic columnist, on more than one occasion. I just recently learned that he's also on faculty at dear Old Nassau, which, of course, is instant brownie points in my book.

He's a very precise and consistant critic of the insanity of the Bush fiscal policy (see previous Macroscope posts "Turning Back The Clock" and "Great Expectations")

There were two things in this article from the Guardian about Krugman himself that really caught my attention:

1. Krugman has been receiving death threats for his criticism of President Bush.

And I thought for a moment: have I ever heard of anyone on the right receiving death threats for criticizing, for instance, Bill Clinton? I mean, Clinton has a very deep reservoir of love and good will among his constituents, but I've never, ever heard of anyone who was willing to even suggest they would hurt someone for talking bad about him.

Who are these people who love George Bush so much that they would threaten death if you dare impune his character? See, this is the part of American politics that I find the most disturbing. Sure, we can all talk about the importance of voting and going to rallies and wearing butttons and contributing money (see above) to support parties & platforms & politicians. But it's all predicated on the assumption that we're all playing by the same rules.

We've forgotten that there was a time that people not unlike yours truly were abducted, beaten, mutilated, killed, and hung from a tree like a f'n pinata for trying to vote. Those kinds of things didn't happen that long ago, and alot of the people who did that are still alive & kicking. They have friends. They have money. They have an agenda. And, most importantly, they are willing to do ANYTHING to get what they want.

I'm reminded of a Watergate retrospective I saw on PBS, where a reporter said he asked Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell if he was willing to commit murder to keep Nixon in office. The guy said he puffed on his pipe, thought about it, and said with a straight face "let me get back to you on that".

I understand crimes of passion. I understand killing out of hunger-induced desperation. I understand revenge. I simply have a hard time fitting my brain around killing innocent strangers for political power. But, as they say, power is it's own narcotic. And, at that point, John Mitchell putting out a hit on someone is the moral equivalent of a crackhead busting you with a pipe to steal your last nickel.

2. Henry Kissinger is an evil genius. And that's not a good thing.

Let's not even get into Christopher Hitchens' book, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger", where the author makes the case that Nixon's former Secretary of State should be tried as a war criminal for, among other things, sabotaging LBJ's peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese to solidify Tricky Dick's position as the only candidate who could end the war in 1968.

But, for his part, Krugman was the most terrified by the seeming prescience showed in the introduction to A World Restored, a history text Kissinger penned in the 1950s. Kissinger referred to Napoleon in 18th & 19th Century France as a revolutionary power that fundamentally rejected the basic tenants of the stable system the dictator sought to control. But Napoleon's greatest advantage was that no one in the opposition could ever fully accept that Napoleon wanted to completely undo the system, despite all the evidence to the contrary, until he had actually undone the system.

So, if Hitler is too incendiary a model to use for the way the Bush neo-conservatives are deconstructing America, perhaps a 200 year old French dictator is, ironically, more appropriate.