BARBARIANS AT THE GATE

by Malik Isasis























On Tuesday August 28, 2007 Raw Story broke the story of an inevitable attack against Iran by the United States, and its allies Great Britain and Israel. The Raw Story article discussed the new paper by scholars Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher titled, “Considering a War with Iran: A Discussion Paper on WMD in the Middle East” (download report).

I’ve spent two days pouring over the disturbing report of how the United States plans to take out Iran nuclear facilities. The report substantiated my theory of Iraq as a staging ground for a much larger colonization effort of Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East.

The necons dusted off their corporate colonization plans immediately after September 11, 2001 and decided that the time is now to exert American power and influence by completely destabilizing the whole of the Middle East, the so-called War on Terror is the distraction, the purpose of a colonization is so that the corporate raiders could come in and rape and pillage the natural resources. The spoils of war and destruction will be divided amongst three countries: the United States, Great Britain and Israel.

The Bush administration and the Likudniks in the Israeli parliament would like us to buy into the nobility of taming the savages in the Middle East by domesticating them, but there is no nobility in subduing millions of people with 80, 000 lbs bombs.

The magnificent failure of the United States’ occupation of Iraq, and Bush insistence on staying the course proves his goal is to stay put until he has destabilized all of the Middle East, creating an opportunity for Israel to dominate the region and the United States to reap the benefits of the natural resources of these countries.

The Colonization of Arabs and Muslims

Excerpts from Plesch’s and Butcher’s paper clearly illustrates Bush’s noble intentions:

General Wesley Clark claims that he became aware of the Bush Administration’s instructions concerning the overthrow of the Iranian regime in September 2001. He states that he was told this in the Pentagon by a serving General holding the order in his hand.

“He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

In various forms, regime change or change of orientation favouring the US occurred in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Somalia in the ensuing six years. (pp. 6)

The Israeli-Lebanon War last summer brought to light, Lebanon as a blueprint for an attack on Iran just as Seymour Hersh reported in August 2006. Israel wasn't successful in the military campaign, however, the US will still use the blueprint. The Bush administration and the Likudniks in Israel were successful in destabilizing the Lebanese government, however. In Bush fashion and in his usual disconnectedness, his administration had the audacity to condemn Hezbollah and its allies in the UN for attempts to destabilize the Lebanese government. In the spring of this year, Bush escalated tensions throughout the Middle East by arming militias throughout Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq causing disruption, death and destruction which has led to destabilization of governments and not to mention, the US inability to track the arms in which it sold or gave to militias. As I suspected before, the targeted countries are being set up to fail, but so are the military, but none of this matter in Bush's World, his eyes are on the prize and not on common sense.

WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, searching for a new approach in Iraq, expressed little enthusiasm on Monday for seeking Syrian and Iranian help to calm Iraq as he cautioned Democrats against quick U.S. troop reductions.

The lack of diplomacy surely makes sense now doesn't it? Speaking of diplomacy or the lack thereof, has the State Department disappeared Condeleezza Rice? Where are the diplomatic efforts on the part of the State Department? Isn't it peculiar that she is nowhere in sight in the looming conflict with Iran?

Geopolitics

The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia.

The United States’ belligerence toward countries in the path of its fascist turn has primed the remnants of the Warsaw Pact, the counterbalance to the US and NATO alliance.

Do you think China and Russia will sit out during US’ attack, or would they militarily support Iran by proxy?

The United States Recipe for Death and Destruction

• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited. • Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

• Short and long term human, political and economic consequences of any war require innovative approaches to prevent the crisis becoming war (pp. 5).

Barbarians at the Gate

Bush’s racist agenda toward the Middle East is to the show the world the United States‘ global reach, most importantly, to steal the resources of people across the Middle East, and kill them in the process. If it wasn’t clear now, it should be clear that Bush is a psychopathic killer who has an uncanny talent of objectifying the people he kills. Bush will not stop until the objective is complete. Therefore the Democratic Party waiting until the September 15 report on progress in Iraq is helping Bush bide his time. Nothing has changed about the occupation; Bush in a show of confidence is getting ready to ask for an additional $50 billion dollar supplemental.

The Democratic Party has failed this country, and will continue to do so. Once Bush starts dropping 80,000 lbs “smart” bombs that will kill tens of thousands of people the Democrats will snap their heels together and salute, making sure that the dollar completely collapse, and destroying the US economy and taking the world with it.

Maybe that makes us suicide bombers too.

PIMP THIS |

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

by Malik Isasis
























The devil decries evil.
Virtue is his guise
To find the hidden villain
Listen for the loudest voice

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


Republicans are finding that their chickens are coming home to roost. For several election cycles now, Republicans and their political operatives have used gays (and Mexicans) as a stepping-stone onto the political stage of morality. Gays were burned at the political stake; they were sacrificial lambs for the Republicans’ self aggrandizing campaign as the Party whose moral values, and family values are impregnable.

An undercover policeman arrested Senator Larry Craig of Idaho on June 11, 2007 for lewd acts in a men's bathroom (read police report here). Craig is just the latest in a long list of repressed and closeted gay Republican politicians and political operatives misbehaving under the guise of moral infallibility.

I would like to add that I am not associating bad behavior with being gay.

One Bad Apple and the Six Degrees of Bill Clinton

Republicans will give the-one-bad-apple argument a spin, ignoring that when you have a barrel full of bad apples, the whole barrel is bad. Republicans and operatives alike are calling for Craig’s resignation but they keep missing the point.

It’s tragic that the Republicans keep solidifying their positions as moral exemplars in the face of systemic corruption. They truly believe their own hype, thinking that it is a select few in the party who go astray…well, here is a list of Republican sex scandals.

Maybe their narcissism is so acute that they are unable to see the continued destructiveness of their ideology; not even most of their members can live up to what they preach.

Gov. ROMNEY: Yeah, I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton. I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we'll just forgive and forget. And the truth of the matter is, the most important thing we expect from elected--an elected official is a level of dignity and character that we can point to for our kids and our grandkids, and say, `Hey, someday I hope you grow up and you're someone like that person.' And we've seen disappointment in the White House, we've seen it in the Senate, we've seen it in Congress. And frankly, it's disgusting.

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney couldn’t help himself by taking a swipe at Clinton. The Republicans are relentless and unforgiving of Bill Clinton’s indiscretions but suffer from short-term memory when it comes to former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s, Republican Representative Henry Hyde’s, Republican Senator Bob Dole’s, and many others’, affairs. What is disgusting Mitt Romney is your self adulation, the inability to divorce yourself from the make-believe world where houses are made of chocolate and peppermint, women know their places, and gay just means, happy.

The Republicans'collective psychosis is supported by the 33% of the populous who support them no matter what, so the Party's ideological flaw will continue unhindered allowing them to become more and more culturally irrelevant.

PIMP THIS |

GETTING OBAMA

by Malik Isasis























The corporate media had delicately set presidential candidate Barack Obama on a pedestal. He was not Jesse Jackson. He was not Al Sharpton. He was not Shirley Chisom, nor Carol Moseley Braun. While Jackson and Sharpton had a generation of media propaganda to discredit their message and treat them as national jokes, Obama transcended what the media saw as “civil rights” baggage. Moseley Braun and Chisom had an additional anvil aside from their African heritage, they were women, so instead of humiliation, they would be completely ignored by the media, but not Barack Obama. He rose to become a media superstar.

The corporate media wouldn’t dare knock Obama off his pedestal with tricks of old like with Jackson and Sharpton, maybe that isn’t true—the gimps in the basement like Rush Limbaugh frequently race-bait their obtuse listeners into a lather (listen here). It is a two-prong campaign. The Republicans and Democrats and their operatives in the corporate media attack Obama obliquely with such adjectives as “inexperience” or “naïve.”

Question.

Where was all this healthy skepticism during the presidential run of the current occupier of the White House?

The inexperienced and naïve narrative is code for both parties--Republicans and Democrats. It is a great substitute for sinking Obama without revealing the racism. But it’s racism, which drives this narrative. It appears more sophisticated on the surface, not really, but for the sake of argument; it makes those white political operatives feel good as they sell this shit to the American people. We need an experience person in a time of war they say, because as Obama said, it was experience that got us into the occupation. It's a ruse.

Although the corporate media isn’t that kind to Obama’s colleague, Hillary Clinton, they the corporate and political establishment have apparently crowned her winner.

True Colors

A dear friend of mine (who’s Caucasian) stated that he wouldn’t support Obama if he were to win the Democratic nomination.

“Why’s that?” I asked.
“’Cause he’s Muslim.” He answered.
“Are you serious?” I asked.
“Yeah I’m serious.” He answered.
“Really?” I checked again. He could’ve been joking.
“I’m not voting for any Muslims to run America.” He said.
“Obama’s not Muslim though.” I said.
“I’m still not voting for him.” He said.

I would like to throw my friend through a window over this, but luckily we have nearly a 20-year relationship, and I know that he is a good man. But this is the problem isn’t it? When good people do nothing. When good people make decisions out of fear and are possessed by dormant racism and prejudices.

Fox News campaign of referring to Barack Obama as a Muslim and attending a Madrassa (means school in Arabic) in Indonesia as a child has apparently worked.

This gets at the heart of white supremacy doesn't it? The idea that someone who shares characteristics of a perceived enemy will be incahoots with that enemy. Of course this only refers to people of color.


Watching Tucker


Last month, over many months as I watched MSNBC, I noticed one of its worthless hosts, Tucker Carlson, becoming increasingly disparaging about Obama. The comments usually seemed out of context and grounded only in ideology. So, for most of August, starting August 1, 2007 I began tracking Carlson’s obsessive coverage of Obama. Below are quotes taken from his show Tucker from the periods of August 1 – August 23, 2007. I used MSNBC’s transcripts to back up these quotes.

In every show through August 1 – August 23, Barack Obama was mentioned in a negative light following the guidelines of the “inexperienced” narrative mentioned earlier. Tucker, and his guest provided very little to no context for their disparaging remarks. The only other Democrat to receive such negative coverage was Hillary Clinton.

The corporate media and its political operatives are looking to kill Obama’s bid for the presidency with a thousand paper cuts without having to overtly use racist propaganda. As for sexist propaganda, the corporate media seems to openly despise the idea of a woman as president, even if she's a corporatist.

Wednesday (August 1)
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to the show. Like the kid who has had sand kicked in his face one to many times, Barack Obama announced to the world he is no weakling when it comes to foreign policy. Obama laid out his vision for a new and more effective war on terror during a speech this morning in Washington.

Thursday
(August 4)
CARLSON: That looked like Barack Obama and as of yesterday, it sounded like him too. Obama gave one of the most remarkable speeches of the 2008 campaign so far yesterday, in which the former peace candidate advocated sending troops into the sovereign nation of Pakistan. Pakistan wasn‘t impressed, they said today. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton though didn‘t object to Obama‘s unilateral military strategy, but fellow candidate Chris Dodd did, and the “Quad City Times” newspaper in Iowa reported that local Democrats weren‘t impressed by Obama‘s bellicose turn either.

Friday
(August 3)
CARLSON: Will the 2008 election has its first hot rivally like Mohammed Ali and Joe Frazier, the Hatfield‘s and the McCoy‘s, the Yankees and the Red Sox, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. The battle of can-you-top-this continues between senators Hillary are Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Did Obama reveal his inexperience and indecisiveness by saying he would never use nuclear weapons and then backtracking from that statement. Is Clinton making a tactical error by playing ball with Obama and making hem appear to be her equal, or is she just hitting back like all candidates do?

Monday
(August 6)
CARLSON: You mentioned a minute ago, Michael, the kind of musty retro odor that accompanies former Mayor Ed Koch wherever he goes. Big labor—it just seems to me that there really isn‘t a group that is less about the future than big labor. I was at a restaurant in Washington last week, eating dinner outside, and Barack Obama was eating inside with these very famous labor leaders, including some who are often on this network.

Tuesday
(August 7)
CARLSON: Amen. Bill Press, an honest man. Thank you.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama used to get along, but that was many days ago, before Obama decided to run for president. Who is giving who the cold should? I think you know.

Plus, the stands are filling up at Soldier Field in Chicago, not to see the Bears play. It‘s union workers filling the stands. They‘re there to see the Democratic candidates square off in about 33 minutes. We‘ll get a preview.

This is MSNBC, the place for politics.

Wednesday
(August 8)
CARLSON: Barack Obama made the point last night that he would like to pull troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, in that region to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But does that mean he not want to fight al-Qaeda any longer in Iraq? I‘m confused and if so, why would he want to fight them in Afghanistan and not in Iraq?

Thursday
(August 9)
CARLSON: …Meanwhile, critics accused Barack Obama of sucking up to the very special interest he claims to be running against. And worse, doing it secretly. Are they right to be outrage or is business as usual not so bad, at least in this case?


Friday
(August 10)
CARLSON: Well, for a group obstensively gay friendly, the leading Democrats , Clinton, Obama, and Edwards seem profoundly conflicted over the one issue that mattered most, gay marriage. Why is that?

Monday
(August 13) Guest Host: Pat Buchanan
BUCHANAN: Top Daschle is going to work for Barack Obama. Are you surprise by that? Is that any kind of negative—is that a slur on Hillary Rodham Clinton? He never served with Obama and he served in the Senate with Hillary Clinton. What does that say?

Tuesday
(August 14) Guest Host: Pat Buchanan
BUCHANAN: Maybe they‘ll get him back.

OK, Barack Obama becomes the first politician to grace the cover of “G.Q.” in 15 years. “G.Q.” obviously recognizes Obama‘s charm, good looks and star power. But could these same qualities end up hurting his campaign?

Wednesday
(August 15) Guest Host: David Shuster
MCMAHON (Democratic Strategist): I don‘t know, but it certainly has that effect. I mean, any time you‘re running for president and you‘re fighting with the president, it elevates you. It doesn‘t elevate the White House. And so, you know, poor Barack Obama is sitting there saying, hey, what about me? What about me? And Hillary Clinton is in a back-and-forth with the White House and with Karl Rove. It couldn‘t be better for her.

Thursday
(August 16) Guest Host: David Shuster
SHUSTER: What do you make of this battle between Hillary and—now for Phil Singer to take it an extra step. Never mind it‘s a battle between Rove and Hillary. Now they are twisting it, and putting it on the Obama campaign, or at least saying it sounds like Barack Obama. That seems to go.

Friday
(August 17) Guest Host: David Shuster
SHUSTER: It does seem like we‘re starting to see a blueprint for how the Obama campaign is going to campaign this fall and that is this idea of change, that Hillary Clinton, the special interest with the Clintons, that‘s part of the same old Washington crowd. And that if you really want to break away from that, you have to go to somebody like Barack Obama. But Ken, will it work?

Monday
(August 20)
CARLSON: How much experience do you need to be president of the United States? It‘s a question Barack Obama has thought quite a bit about, of course. He says change is more important than experience. Will voters buy that?

Tuesday
(August 21)
CARLSON:…Plus, Barack Obama says you don‘t need experience to become president of the United States, it‘s all about change. Or is it? What is his position?

Wednesday
(August 22)
CARLSON: Michelle Obama appears to have taken a potshot at her husband‘s chief rival, Hillary Clinton. But did she really do that? Are we just imagining it here in the fervent press corps?

Thursday
(August 23)
CARLSON: So, Peter, just answer this question for me really quickly if you would.

Barack Obama said today—it was reported in a David Ignatius column in “The Washington Post”—that he would like to withdraw troops, but it‘s going to take at least a year under his vision of it, maybe longer, and troops will remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, among many other things. We‘re still going to have troops in there if Barack Obama is elected president.

PIMP THIS |

WHITE MAN'S LOVE

by Margaret Kimberley, The Black Agenda Report


















"Can you imagine what debates are going to be like with great big Andrew Jackson-looking Fred (Thompson) and Hillary on her stubby little legs, stamping her feet?" - Anonymous Republican


Politicians and pundits are outdoing themselves displaying creepy, cult-like admiration for the white Republican men running for president. The old narrative recently brought out of the closet says that only big, manly white men should run America. Former Senator turned actor Fred Thompson has not officially declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination, but the man-crushes have been flying in his direction at a fast and furious pace.

"We need a president of the United States after the 2008 election who will rise above the partisan challenges ... That person is 6 foot 6. He has a commanding voice. He has a commanding presence. He makes people feel secure. He makes us feel confident."

So says Republican Congressman Zack Wamp. He thinks we need a big white man in charge.

When President Bush landed a plane on the deck of the USS Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished," MSNBC's Chris Matthews could barely contain himself. "We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical...." Matthews is so in love with his fellow white guys that he even likes the way they smell:

"Can you smell the English leather on this guy (Thompson), the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke?"

Thompson is not the only Republican receiving heman declarations of love. We are told that Mitt Romney has "perfect hair," "a perfect chin," "a barrel chest," "shoulders you can land a 737 on," and last but not least, he even "radiates vigor."

It is easy to laugh at what passes for journalism in this country. Only America would allow such obvious hacks to even be employed. Yet their presence in the corporate media is proof that they are not alone in espousing racist, sexist notions about who should govern.

Chris Matthews thinks that white men should speak loudly and walk with big dicks. G. Gordon Liddy thinks so too. The convicted Watergate criminal is taken seriously as a political commentator and is a favorite Matthews sidekick. He said of Bush during the mission accomplished flight:

"You know, he's in his flight suit, he's striding across the deck, and he's wearing his parachute harness, you know -- and I've worn those because I parachute -- and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those -- run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars."

If women just swoon at the sight of a phallus, it stands to reason that men must remain in charge. Hillary Clinton, as ready as the rest to pull the trigger, isn't taken seriously by the white man worship cult. She doesn't have a "manly characteristic" to show the world.

There is a very deep longing at work here. It is easy to snicker at George W. Bush clearing brush in Texas, but Karl Rove knew what he was doing when he orchestrated those photo ops. The image of the cowboy, the burly conqueror of a continent, is still an American icon.

While Republicans get the man-crush treatment, John Edwards is derided as a sissy with girlie hair. He is placed in the so-called top tier among Democratic candidates because he too believes in America's empire, but he is just not vicious enough for the pundit class reveling in their hemanliness. Mitt Romney doesn't garner acclaim just because of his broad shoulders and great chin. Advocating "double Guantanamo" makes him a man's man favorite.

There is no other nation where supposedly respectable people speak of "muscular" foreign policy. Barack Obama longs for "muscular" alliances. It is little wonder that talk of penis size, height and shoulder width are seriously considered as criteria for choosing a president.

The longing for a strong man, previously reserved for third world dictatorships, has taken hold in this country. George W. Bush has brought yet another ugly chicken home to roost. The cowboys are back, clearing brush and clearing the earth of any humans they don't want around. The rest of the world need only get out their way before sundown.

PIMP THIS |

SCHADENFREUDE

by Malik Isasis



















Schadenfreude is a German word and it means someone taking pleasure or joy in the misfortune of others.

I watched MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN throughout the day on Tuesday as news broke that Michael Vick, the Atlanta Falcons quarterback, pleaded guilty to dog fighting charges. It was an interesting spectacle and as I knew they would, reports of Vick’s plea drabbed on, and on, and on, and on throughout the day.

The corporate media diverted untold resources to cover the story, rather to seek and destroy Vick. The media is efficient at building up celebrities only to destroy them—kind of like a child building a sand castle and then taking a baseball bat to it.

The Blacker the Berry the Sweeter the Juice

Since O.J. Simpson, the black athlete has a special place in the heart of the media and white folk, so when they fall, the media makes sure it’s a face plant on the concrete. O.J. has made the media feel like a jilted lover; he's betrayed their love and trust and like a jilted lover, every other lover after will have to compete with that ghost.

You are probably thinking what does this have to do with race? Wrong is wrong. Everything in America has to do with race. We all know that justice is distributed unequally based on race, gender and class.

The bathos of the punditry, the manufactured outrage over Vick rings hollow. Mutilating and killing dogs is of course disturbing; however, is it more disturbing than the twin genocides in the Congo and Darfur? Or how about the 500 Iraqis that were killed in Iraq? I say all of this as a person who lives with three very large French Mastiffs
(the Turner and Hooch dog ).

9 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money was stolen in Iraq. Where is the perspective on the spectrum of outrage?

We are occupying two Arab countries, and discussing plans to attack a Persian one. Meanwhile, China is slowly creeping in on Africa to colonize its resources.

I am outraged at the so-called outrage because this strategy works. It's why the corporate media does what it does. So while, the public is distracted with being outraged with Michael Vick, Bush is still wiping his ass with the Constitution.

PIMP THIS |

STUCK AND SUICIDAL IN A POST-KATRINA TRAILER PARK

by Alix Spiegel, NPR

















The first morning of my visit to Scenic Trails, I was walking the path between some trailers when I bumped into a man named Tim Szepek. He was young, tall, and solidly good-looking. I asked if I could speak to him for a moment and he agreed. We found a spot of shade beneath a tree, and I started with what I considered a casual warm-up.

"What's it like to live around here?" I asked.

"Well," he replied, "I'll be honest."

"Ain't a day goes by when I don't think about killing myself."

And so began my time in Scenic Trails, a FEMA trailer park deep in the Mississippi woods where 100 families have lived in near isolation for close to two years.

Though Szepek was the first resident to tell me he wanted to commit suicide, he certainly wasn't the last. The day I spoke with him, three other residents confided the same.

The second person was Stephanie Sigur, a 28-year-old mother of two. She was sitting in front of her trailer at a picnic table, her daughter on her lap, when she explained that if it weren't a sin, she would have blown her brains out months ago.

"I know it's a bad thing to say because I'm a parent," she told me as her toddler played with her hair, "but I can't live like this no more."

Stephanie Sigur and Tim Szepek aren't alone. According to a recent study of 92 different Katrina FEMA parks published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, suicide attempts in Louisiana and Mississippi's parks are 79 times higher than the national average. Major depression is seven times the national rate.

When I first read those numbers, I found them hard to believe. But after three days at Scenic Trails, they made a lot more sense.

The residents there, in essence, are trapped. It is no longer possible for them to live outside the trailer parks. Prior to Katrina, most of the people who now live in the parks were renters.

Along the Mississippi coast, a family of four could rent a two- or three-bedroom apartment or small home for around $500 a month. But when the storm wiped the Mississippi coast clean, it took out all the housing infrastructure that supported these people. Most of them are minimum-wage workers who live paycheck to paycheck. Today, a two- or three-bedroom apartment in Hancock County, where Scenic Trails is located, costs $800, $900, even $1,000 a month. This is an impossible amount of money for the people who live in the parks, and there is no immediate end in sight. FEMA says it would like to close the parks, but state and federal government plans to rebuild low-income housing for Mississippi coast residents have yet to break ground. Housing experts says it will probably take years to produce enough low-cost housing to move people out of the parks.

And so they are stuck. And the place they are stuck is not the kind of place you would want to spend an extended amount of time. For two years, many have lived in travel trailers intended for weekend use. Families of four housed in a space the size of most people's living rooms.

Worse, as time wears on, the communities around them seem to be falling into a kind of madness. At Scenic Trails, almost everyone at the camp has been burglarized at least once. Meth and cocaine addiction is rampant, and residents seem to be turning against one another.

Recently, the park has seen a rash of animal mutilations. One resident told me that her cat had come home bleeding — a long, thin razor cut along its leg. Another resident said his dog's throat had been cut, and several people reported that someone in the camp had been feeding anti-freeze to dogs.

No one seemed to have a particular suspect in mind. There was no specific theory of why. That was just the way things went at the camp nowadays. With no way to leave, people were angry and frustrated, and so they act out.

On the animals. On each other. On themselves.

PIMP THIS |

SQAURE PEG, ROUND HOLE

by Malik Isasis



















From the people who brought you the Iraq Occupation, the Afghanistan quagmire, the Hurricane Katrina Aftermath, the Lebanon-Israeli war, the arming of militias across the world, the national debt, an arms race with China, a coming cold war with Russia, and the collapse of the American dollar, bring you the September status report on progress in Iraq.

General Petraeus is a pawn, a used condom in the Bush Syndicate's attempt to change nothing about the occupation. As I said before Iraq is the staging ground for a bigger operation, Iran. General Petraeus like the generals before him have come to personify cowardice and have allowed Bush to break the military.

Media Malfeasants

Over the past several weeks the corporate media has been vomiting the bile of propaganda out onto the American people. In sheer political hackery, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the New York Times stated this:

In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Yes, morale is so high
99 soldiers committed suicide last year, the highest suicide rate in 26 years.

O’Hanlon and Pollack are political operatives. The purpose of their op-ed piece in the New York Times was so that it could be used by the Bush Syndicate as support for their bloody occupation and colonization of Iraq. Watch Darth Cheney use these douchebags’ piece to obfuscate the failure (see here.) Although corporate hacks peg these philistines as critics of Bush and the Iraq occupation, nothing could be further from the truth. O’Hanlon and Pollack have always supported the occupation (see here).

Do you see how these fools, roll?

The corporate media stands in front of the Iraq door to hide the death and destruction unleashed by the United States' occupation, but the people see the blood seeping through the cracks. The corporate puppets can not hide the death.

BAGHDAD: The death toll from four suicide truck bomb attacks in northern Iraq has risen to 400, a top official said on Thursday, making it by far the deadliest attack since the fall of Saddam Hussein four years ago.

“More than 400 people were killed and the toll is expected to rise,” the director of operations at the interior ministry, Major General Abdel Karim Khalaf, told AFP.

The number of people killed was also the highest single toll since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States in which around 3,000 people died. Khalaf said the four suicide bombers packed two tonnes of explosives into their lorries, unleashing massive devastation on members of the ancient Yazidi religious sect in the northern province of Nineveh on Tuesday.

Measuring Success

Bush and the media are measuring success how? Are the newsreaders and pundits at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX NEWS retarded? It sure seems so. Success should be measured on how many other Arab and Muslim countries we can get to come in and broker peace and commit their troops. Measuring success should be getting Iran to the table. Measuring success should be getting the world involved.

But Bush is not looking for success; rather he, the neocons and the Likudniks in the Israeli parliament are looking to parlay their shitastic foreign policy effort toward Iran.

Bush and Cheney are emotional and intellectual cripples. These two men are in charge of the group think Republicans who will follow them into the depths of hell. The corporate media has begun priming the American people for another extension of the occupation, by providing cover for the Bush Syndicate; the Republicans will still support the occupation because the party doesn’t support independent thinking, and they're despotic even at the possibilities of self-destruction. So, here’s my prediction: Bush isn’t going to change (remember, he’s like the savant of death), the Republicans will continue their support, and the Democrats will fold and compromise by giving Bush exactly what he wants.

That’s depressing, however, I'm not giving up on this country. Any country where I can talk this much shit is worth fighting for.

PIMP THIS |

2 DAYS IN PARIS

a film review by Malik Isasis























Approximately ten years ago my partner at the time received a job offer from a certain Ivory league university in Boston. We were both finishing up school at the University of Washington in Seattle.

We flew out to Boston together for the interview. We rehearsed her interview in the hotel room. She was so nervous her nose began to bleed. Then her body began to shake before she went into a full-fledge panic attack. It took a long time to talk her off the emotional ledge. Eventually she was stable enough to get down to the interview.

Two hours later she came back euphoric stating that they offered her the job on the spot. Little did we know that the transition would unravel our relationship.

She had 90 days to finish her dissertation, graduate and drive out to Boston. Needless to say, this put an incredible amount of stress on the relationship and I gave her some space to finish her dissertation, and by the time she’d finished there was a noticeable distance. We debated whether or no we should move to Boston together.

“I don't know how I feel about us.” She told me.
“Yeah.” I agreed.

Even with doubts and the voices in our heads telling us that we were right, we still decided to pack up the SUV and drive 3,000 from Seattle to Boston.

As we hit I-90 West, she received a phone call. I could hear the voice, it was male, but I could not hear the content. During the conversation, I became just a pronoun.

“I’m with my friend. We’re driving out now.” When one becomes a pronoun, it’s clearly over.

Needless to say, during the drive to Boston, I began wondering whether or not she was faithful.

We fought.

We made up.

I discovered a box a condoms we never opened, but one was used. My imagination spiraled out of control.

"Did you cheat on me?" I asked.
"No." She said.

We did not speak through the state of Wyoming, and in the hotels, we slept in separate beds. It was a nightmare. I thought that if we made it to Boston alive, I would never speak to this woman again.

By the time we made it to Boston, it was clear that the relationship had passed away, long before we acknowledged it. On the 3,000-mile road trip, there was a lot of damage.

Ten years have past and we were able to move past the damage to become the best friends. Somehow, we survived ourselves to become better friends. It was difficult but we became stronger, even taking a trip to Europe.

2 Days in Paris

That was the emotional baggage that was unpacked as I watched Julie Delpy’s 2 Days in Paris where French photographer Marion (Julie Delpy) and her American Interior Designer partner of two years Jack (Adam Goldberg) have a two day lay over in Paris after a romantic getaway in Venice.

The film opens with Marion and Jack on one of those speed trains in Europe, asleep. It is clear from the moment we see them asleep that the Venice trip revealed something about who they were as a couple but they weren’t ready to address it, rather they wanted to forget them in Paris. However, the moment they step off the train and into Paris, Paris spares them no such sympathy.

Marion and Jack run into many of Marion’s former paramours. Marion enjoys the flirtation as Jack’s insecurities grow and he begins to imagine things that may or may not have happened. It didn’t help his paranoia when she is caught in a lie.

In one scene, Marion admits nonchalantly that she gave one guy a blowjob. Jack states that it was a blowjob that almost brought down the free world. Marion tells Jack to get some perspective that on a scale of morality, there’s war and poverty, then there’s blowjobs, which don’t configure at all in the scheme of things.

The crack the couple was hoping to conceal only accentuated their dysfunction, nearly destroying their relationship. 2 Days in Paris is a romantic comedy, however, it follows emotional logic. It doesn’t set up false obstacles for the protagonists to overcome. There are no bad or good people, just people trying to make sense of their relationship. Both Marion and Jack are very flawed and probably shouldn’t be together, but they are, and are trying to make it work.

Delpy is a bright actress and talented filmmaker. It is hard to believe that this is her directorial debut. She co-wrote Before Sunrise with Richard Linklater and Ethan Hawke in 1994 and the sequel to Before Sunset with Linklater and Hawke in 2004.

Delpy has been smart over the years choosing her work in Europe and the United States (she can be forgiven for the mess An American Werewolf in Paris)

Delpy wrote, directed, and starred in the film; if that wasn’t enough, she also scored the music in the film. Great comedians make you laugh because they tell stories in a way that tap into universal experiences; Delpy is able to use the universal feelings of jealousy, confusion, and anger to make us connect to her characters and follow them to their logical conclusion.


Grade: A

PIMP THIS |

THE CULTURE OF LIFE

by Malik Isasis
























Wikipedia defines the phrase “culture of life” as such: The phrase "culture of life" is a term used in moral theology. It is shorthand for a concept that human life, at all stages from conception through to natural death, is sacred. As such, a "culture of life" is opposed to practices seen by its proponents as destructive of human life, such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, contraception, capital punishment, and war. “Culture of life” was hijacked by the Republican Party and its political operatives to be used as a weapon against the Democratic Party for its position on a woman’s right to choose on abortion.

There are large portions of the social conservative voting block that are single-issue voters, meaning a large swath of voters only vote on the abortion issue. So, when Republicans and their flying monkeys evoke “culture of life” or the “sanctity of life” the social conservative sheeple stop thinking and march in lock step to the slaughterhouse.

While the Middle East is afire and twin genocides consume parts of Africa, the Republican Party consistently refer to itself as the party of moral values; it is the party of life—*the culture of life better still they respect *the sanctity of life (while taking it).

*Culture of life or the sanctity of life is political rhetoric, but if the party were to take this slogan seriously, the culture of life would apply only to white, upper middle class people who live only in America…and in Israel, possibly Great Britain and depending on America's mood, maybe the other European countries. If you live in France, culture of life does not pertain to you. Countries located below the equator, the culture of life does not pertain to you either, the only exception to this clause is Australia and New Zealand

Cherry Pickers

Like with text in the bible, the Republicans purposely cherry pick what is useful for their political means while discarding the rest. Moral theologians clearly include all phases of life—from conception through natural death. This includes capital punishment, and war. As you may have already observed, the most ardent conservative politician and his sheeple supports capital punishment, the bloody occupation in Iraq, and turns a blind eye to the genocides in the Congo and Darfur without blinking. The contradiction is completely lost on them (see here).

The despotic Republicans blow their wad on one phase of life, the conception phase. Republicans are always working hard to cut welfare benefits from the poorest of the poor in the country, mainly children and the elderly. The Republicans are so into the “sanctity of life” that during their six year absolute rule, they allowed 47 million Americans to be without health insurance; under their purview the United States occupied two Arab countries resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians; they ignored the summer bombing campaign in Lebanon where thousands of civilians were killed; they allowed US citizens in New Orleans to languish in filth and die in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina, and they ignored twin genocides in the Congo and Darfur.

Culture of life, right?

Pathology of power

Republicans have no interests in “the culture of life” their sloganeering is geared toward winning elections and maintaining power. They cater to the false sense of moral superiority of the sheeple who they’ve convinced to vote against their own interests.

They are political weevils that have bored their way into the political infrastructure and have laid waste to common sense, compassion and public service. Instead the federal government serves as the jump off for their larvae to develop into full fledge corporate lobbyists.

So Easy, Even A Caveman Can Do It

As I’ve watched the Republican presidential aspirants tripping over each other’s dicks to see who is the least thoughtful, and the most authoritarian it occurred to me that these knuckle-draggers don’t even try to hide their contempt for the government or the people who they would govern. Bush and his puppeteers have set the template: don’t hide your xenophobia wear that shit on your shoulders like a badge. Justify your bigotry with phrases like ‘political correctness’, it gets across the hatred and intolerance to the carnal base of your social conservative flock. National Security, National Security, National Security. It’s National Security stupid, you can kill as many people as you want, you can even bankrupt the country—as long as you call it National Security, don't fret the media will give you a great alibi and the Democrats are too afraid to do anything.

The Culture of Life refers only to the political life of the Republican politician. It is why Governor Mitt Romeny and Rudy Guiliani have decided to become part of the movement.

It is the sloganeering, despotic Republican Congress person or Senator who benefits from the empty slogan, "The Culture of Life." It is effective, which is why it works. And it's so easy to say. It’s so easy, a caveman has already done it.

PIMP THIS |

WHEN THE APPLE DOESN’T FALL FAR FROM THE TREE

by Malik Isasis






















Recently, George H.W. Bush expressed his frustration with the piling on of his son and his foreign policy decision. Father Bush has come to the defense of baby Bush on numerous occasions throughout junior’s suffocating reign.

Pops like son, blames everyone except self for the personal failures and shortcomings that has brought this country to the doorstep of Hades. I have psychoanalyzed junior’s and father’s dynamic ad nauseam, but they keep providing me fodder with their inability to accept criticism, responsibility and self-reflection.

If Bush knocked down an expensive vase he would blame it on the gravity, I once wrote. This pathology doesn’t develop in a vacuum. It stems from Pops not allowing junior to taste failure when he deserved to. So baby Bush developed a blind spot for sympathy, because he can’t relate to loss or failure. Instead what Pops embedded into the junior’s psyche is a sense of privilege, the inability to be emotionally and intellectually flexible and narcissism. This has wrought someone who is clearly a sociopath.

The Bush Crime Family

Bush Jr. didn’t fall far from the tree of Bush Sr.and it appears Bush Sr. didn’t fall far from the tree of his father Senator Prescott Bush. Just like Prescott Bush profited in Word War I, Bush Sr. profited in Gulf War I, Bush Jr. is profiting from Gulf War II. The Bush Crime family public service has always been a means to money launder, war profits.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Isn’t it ironic that over the past six and a half years Bush shamed dissent by saying that those who opposed his policies were aiding and comforting the Terrorists, when it was his grandfather Prescott Bush who literally aided and comforted the Nazi machine by way of capitalism.

Bush is like a space beacon that has been programmed to fly into the sun. He has the coordinates and all the codes passed along by his father and grandfather. The only way to divert this man's lack of imagination is to impeach him, but as history has shown, the Democrats are driving the getaway car.

PIMP THIS |

BUSH GETS A SPYING BLANK CHECK

by Robert Parry, Consortium News
























Eager to leave for its August recess, Congress handed George W. Bush another blank check on executive power, letting him order up spying directives against a vast number of people, including Americans, if they are physically outside the United States.

The “Protect America Act of 2007” sets the standard for a surveillance order – which can last for up to one year – as simply that it be “directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.”

The bill’s advocates claim it is intended to intercept communications when at least one party is linked to a terrorist group or a terrorist affiliate and is outside the United States. But the bill’s language doesn’t limit the surveillance to “terrorists” or “enemy combatants” – indeed those words are not mentioned in the legislation.

Nor does the bill, which was drafted by the Bush administration’s national security team, specify what happens to a one-year surveillance order against a target if the person then enters – or returns – to the United States. The vaguely worded act gives broad discretion to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.

Its key language states: “Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.”

In the pre-recess rush to wrap up legislative business – and to avoid a messy confrontation with President Bush – Congress offered only cursory attention to what this provision means and what new abuses are now possible.

For instance, could a one-year surveillance order be issued against an American attorney who was representing a Guantanamo detainee and who traveled to Europe for a legal conference? Could the surveillance order follow that person back home? How about an outspoken peace activist who visited a friend in Canada?

The key limitation on the administration’s authority is the need to be seeking “foreign intelligence information.” Though the term does cover information about possible hostile acts by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, including sabotage, terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the phrase can be interpreted in a far looser way.

The term can be defined broadly as information about a foreign power that relates to U.S. national defense, national security or the conduct of foreign affairs. In today’s world, those categories could mean pretty much anything.

Not Reassuring

Other supposed safeguards in the bill might not be reassuring to its targets, either. While the targets obviously are kept in the dark about the surveillance, their communications providers – such as phone companies or e-mail services – can challenge the government’s order if they’re willing to absorb the expense and offend the Executive Branch, which often has giant contracts with the same providers.

Even then, the service providers, which aren't told the classified basis for the surveillance order, can only contest the surveillance on procedural grounds through the secret channels of the FISA court system, with appeals of adverse rulings allowed by either side up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But service providers are given a strong incentive not to challenge the government’s order. While a legal challenge on behalf of an unsuspecting client could be expensive – especially if the Bush administration were to retaliate by shifting government contracts to a competitor – the legislation grants immunity from liability to any service provider who complies.

“Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section,” the bill states.

In other words, if spying targets later discover that their service providers gave the government access to their phone calls and e-mails, they have no grounds to sue for damages, regardless of how unjustified the surveillance may have been.

Given the Bush administration’s proclivity for stretching the boundaries of its powers, the scope of the spying legislation alarmed civil libertarians and some Democrats who favored a more limited revision of FISA to address a supposed new obstacle related to spying on suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

Boehner’s Leak

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, divulged in a Fox News interview on July 31 that a FISA court had ruled in secret that warrantless intercepts of foreign communications routed through the United States were illegal.

“There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States," Boehner said.

President Bush then demanded that Democrats approve a revision to the FISA law before leaving for the August recess. Democrats thought they had reached a compromise that would address the kind of situation described by Boehner, but the White House and the Republicans demanded more sweeping changes.

The Senate caved in first, voting 60-28 to authorize Bush’s broader spying powers, with many centrist Democrats – such as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb – joining a solid phalanx of Republicans. (Presidential contenders – Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden – voted no.)

On Aug. 4, Bush turned up the heat on the House. He called the spying powers contained in the bill crucial weapons in the fight against terrorism and declared that “protecting America is our most solemn obligation.”

Many Americans would disagree, arguing that the most solemn obligation is to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic congressional leaders acted as if their highest priorities were getting away for the August recess and avoiding ugly attacks on their patriotism from Fox News and the right-wing media.

Instead of canceling the recess – and using the month of August to fight over both Bush’s extraordinary expansion of presidential powers and the Iraq War – House Democratic leaders brought the Senate-approved “Protect America Act of 2007” to the floor. It carried, 227-183, with 41 Democratic defections.

Trying to put the best spin on their defeat, Democratic leaders pointed to their one concession: a sunset provision that requires President Bush to seek renewal of his powers in six months.

However, not only it is it hard to envision the Democrats finding more backbone to stand up to the “soft on terror” charge in an election year, but passage of the bill complicates the argument that Bush broke the law with his prior warrantless wiretapping.

Bush’s defenders can now cite this broad legislative authority as giving, in effect, a retroactive congressional blessing to Bush’s apparent violations of FISA, which requires a secret court warrant for eavesdropping and other spying inside the United States.

Some rank-and-file Democrats also may wonder how valuable their party’s electoral victory in November 2006 has proved to be. Despite gaining control of Congress, the Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq War or to reinstate habeas corpus and other constitutional rights that were breached by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed before the election.

Ducking a Fight

The Democratic leaders have failed to slow the growth of presidential power in large part because they keep avoiding a showdown with Bush.

Early on, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, took presidential impeachment “off the table.” Plus, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would always approve Bush’s requests for Iraq War funding even as Republicans use vetoes and filibusters to block Democratic war policy alternatives.

Democrats also remain fearful of right-wing media attacks on their patriotism. In a July meeting with former CIA officer Ray McGovern and some impeachment backers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, lamented that the Republicans and Fox News would have a field day if a Democratic impeachment effort flopped. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “John Conyers Is No Martin Luther King.”]

Now, in August, the Democrats have shied away from another confrontation with Bush, leaving little doubt that last November’s election has done little to change the underlying political dynamic of Washington.

PIMP THIS |

RACIAL INDIFFERENCE

by Malik Isasis















I haven’t discussed the genocide in Darfur much here at The Matrix. The world is a mess, and I have chosen to spend my passion on the occupation, colonization and the cultural genocide of Iraq, and let other writers and truth seekers expose the tragedy in Sudan.

The idea of writing about both the holocaust in Darfur and the effects of the colonization attempt in the Middle East are overwhelming; I would need to do this full time and immediately get myself into therapy for the secondary trauma.

I will write more about Darfur, but first I would like to educate myself on the conflict. Like most Americans, I don’t know a lot about the root causes of the conflict. What I do know is the racial indifference toward the victims and the perpetrators by the corporate media, the United States government, and the United Nations.

The victims in Darfur have three things working against them: they’re black, they’re Muslims, and they’re Africans, a trifecta of characteristics that explains why the world is quiet.

The Holocaust is Not a Trademark

I’ve watched Benjamin Netanyahu sell a war with Iran by comparing Iran to Nazi Germany.

Iran is Germany, and it`s 1938, except that this Nazi regime that is in Iran, that`s a religious kind of fanaticism, but it wants to dominate the world, annihilate the Jews, but also annihilate America. Remember, we`re the small Satan. You`re the big Satan.

Politicians like Netanyahu, political operatives and The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have trademarked the Jewish holocaust for political gain and access to power, and to receive a moral blank check from the world to colonize the Middle East. Wouldn’t it be something if those politicians advocated for an intervention in Darfur.

If Netanyahu put as much energy in advocating for peace, or an end to the holocaust that is happening now, rather than perpetual war and colonization in the Middle East, maybe—just maybe the world would pay more attention.

Poor, African, Black, and Muslim; race does matter, doesn’t it?

PIMP THIS |

Media Blitz for War: The Big Guns of August

by Norman Solomon, Common Dreams














This week the U.S. media establishment is mainlining another fix for the Iraq war: It isn’t so bad after all, American military power could turn wrong into right, chronic misleaders now serve as truth-tellers. The hit is that the war must go on.When the White House chief of staff Andrew Card said five years ago that “you don’t introduce new products in August,” he was explaining the need to defer an all-out PR campaign for invading Iraq until early fall. But this year, August isn’t a bad month to launch a sales pitch for a new and improved Iraq war. Bad products must be re-marketed to counteract buyers’ remorse.

“War critics” who have concentrated on decrying the lack of U.S. military progress in Iraq are now feeling the hoist from their own petards. But that’s to be expected. Those who complain that the war machine is ineffective are asking for more effective warfare even when they think they’re demanding peace.

If Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack didn’t exist, they’d have to be invented. The duo’s op-ed piece Monday in the New York Times, under the headline “A War We Just Might Win,” was boilerplate work from elite foreign-policy technicians packaging themselves as “two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” A recent eight-day officially guided tour led them to conclude that “we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

Both men have always been basic supporters of the Iraq war. O’Hanlon is a prolific writer at the Brookings Institution. Pollack’s credits include working at the CIA and authoring the 2002 bestseller “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” In the years since the candy and flowers failed to materialize, their critiques of the Iraq war have been merely tactical.

The media maneuvers of recent days are eerily similar to scams that worked so well for the Bush administration during the agenda-setting for the invasion. Vice President Cheney and his top underlings kept leaking disinformation about purported Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda — while the New York Times and other key media outlets breathlessly reported the falsehoods as virtual facts. Then Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and other practitioners of warcraft quickly went in front of TV cameras and microphones to cite the “reporting” in the Times and elsewhere that they had rigged in the first place.

Last Monday, the ink was scarcely dry on the piece by O’Hanlon and Pollack before the savants were making the rounds of TV studios and other media outlets — doing their best to perpetuate a war that they’d helped to deceive the country into in the first place.

The next day, Cheney picked up the tag-team baton. Tuesday night, on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” he declared that the U.S. military “made significant progress now into the course of the summer. … Don’t take it from me. Look at the piece that appeared yesterday in the New York Times, not exactly a friendly publication — but a piece by Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq. They’re just back from visiting over there. They both have been strong critics of the war.”

On Wednesday, the U.S. News & World Report website noted: “The news that the U.S. death toll in Iraq for July, at 73, is the lowest in eight months spurred several news organizations to present a somewhat optimistic view of the situation in Iraq. The consensus in the coverage appears to be that things are improving militarily, even as the political side of the equation remains troubling.”

Such media coverage is a foreshadowing of what’s in store big-time this fall when the propaganda machinery of the warfare state goes into high gear. The media echo chamber will reverberate with endless claims that the military situation is improving, American casualties will be dropping and Iraqi forces will be shouldering more of the burden.

Arguments over whether U.S. forces can prevail in Iraq bypass a truth that no amount of media spin can change: The U.S. war effort in Iraq has always been illegitimate and fundamentally wrong. Whatever the prospects for America’s war there, it shouldn’t be fought.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. news media were fond of disputes about whether light really existed at the end of the tunnel. Framed that way, the debate could — and did — go on for many years. The most important point to be made was that the United States had no right to be in the tunnel in the first place.

For years now, many opponents of the Iraq war have assumed that the tides of history were shifting and would soon carry American troops home. “President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over,” New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote in August 2005. He concluded that the United States as a country “has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We’re outta there.”

As I wrote at the time, Rich’s storyline was “a complacent message that stands in sharp contrast to the real situation we now face: a U.S. war on Iraq that may persist for a terribly long time. For the Americans still in Iraq, and for the Iraqis still caught in the crossfire of the occupation, the experiences ahead will hardly be compatible with reassuring forecasts made by pundits in the summer of 2005.”

Or in the summer of 2007.

Unfortunately, what I wrote two Augusts ago is still true: “We’re not ‘outta there’ — until an antiwar movement in the United States can grow strong enough to make the demand stick.”

The American media establishment continues to behave like a leviathan with a monkey on its back — hooked on militarism and largely hostile to the creative intervention that democracy requires.

THE BLACK KID WAS DRIVING

by Margaret Kimberley, Black Agenda Report

















If Atlanta Falcons player Michael Vick really was an impresario in arranging for dogs to fight to the death, then he is not a nice person. However, in the American racial equation, Vick's alleged animal abuse appears to rate far higher on the scale of infamy than the murder of human beings. Music producer Phil Spector's seemingly endless trial on charges of shooting a woman in the mouth doesn't even make the newspapers - but Michael Vick's alleged transgressions against dogs has the nation in an uproar. Meanwhile, crazed, young, talentless white female celebrities flaunt their lawlessness and amorality with abandon.

Is it worse to torture dogs or to shoot a human being in the mouth? To judge from editorial comment and the presence of protesters, it would seem that forcing dogs to fight is worse than shooting bullets into a woman's head. Of course, that equation only works if the dog fighting impresario is black and the murderer is white.

These days the hot ghetto mess is coming from white celebrities. They are on trial for murder, drug possession, or DUI. Based on expressions of sympathy or levels of outrage generated, you wouldn't know who was misbehaving.

Atlanta Falcon's quarterback Michael Vick was indicted this week on federal charges involving dog fighting and gambling that took place on his property in Virginia. He will at the very least miss this upcoming NFL season. If he is found guilty of all charges lodged against him, he may face years in prison.

In a Los Angeles court room, legendary music producer Phil Spector stands trial for murder. Four years ago he shot and killed Lana Clarkson, a struggling actress. His defense asserts that a suicidal Clarkson grabbed Spector's gun and shot herself in the mouth.

After the Clarkson killing there were numerous press reports that Spector threatened both men and women with guns over a span of many years. Apparently it occurred to very few of Spector's victims to call police, file lawsuits or even tell the press about his very dangerous habit. It clearly pays to be white and rich.

Unlike in the Vick case, protesters don't show up when Spector enters the court house. Murder of humans doesn't produce the same level of vitriol that dog murder does. Perhaps there should be another PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Actresses.

Contrast the treatment of the accused animal abuser with that of a murderer. The Spector case has dragged on for so long that it isn't even a headline any more. No one has bothered to ask why a man who was regularly armed and flagrant about his possession of guns was given a pass, even by the very people who fell victim to his threatening behavior.

The double standard seen in the Spector/Vick comparison applies in other cases of celebrity misbehavior. A day doesn't end without a new story of a white celebrity fighting jail time, or in the case of Lindsay Lohan chasing a personal assistant through the streets of Los Angeles. When police caught up with Lohan after her bizarre high speed chase, she turned to the white person's favorite means of avoiding trouble. She blamed a black person. "I wasn't driving. The black kid was driving." The black person in question was the only one of his race among Lohan's companions that evening and the fickle finger of fate was immediately pointed in his direction.

Lohan is more famous for being famous than she is for having any discernible talent. Yet she still manages to get a sympathetic hearing from white opinion makers like Katie Couric. Couric was not content to make a well publicized mess of her phony effort to be a journalist. Instead of spending time earning her chops, she has made herself a defense witness for Lohan, celebrity burnout of the century.

"Why do so many relish her woes?" asked Couric. "Does it somehow make us all feel superior? What about compassion and the fervent hope she'll get the treatment she needs? This young woman's life is on the line. And that's not entertainment."

Translation: white people always deserve sympathy. White people are to be defended and black people are not. No one needed Dr. Couric to come up with the brilliant conclusion that Lohan is an addict. So are many of the black men and women sitting in jails across the country. Their incarceration is a gravy train for private prisons and the poor white communities where those prisons are located. No one ever speaks compassionately for them. On the contrary, white politicians campaign on a platform of putting more black faces behind bars, and the black public is sadly silent due to misplaced feelings of embarrassment.

While Couric and others waste time crying for rich, stupid junkies, a few wiser heads make better sense. Jane Fonda had this advice for Lohan, a former co-star. "I'd want to say to her that this is not a dress rehearsal. This is it. If you blow it, you don't get a second chance." How odd. That sounds like the sort of admonition black people usually get. Thank goodness someone is capable of keeping it real, even when white people are concerned.

PIMP THIS |