gutrot

newgrauniad: newbritain?

2005-09-21T16:13:00.000+01:00

We is a doughnut: saccharine and hollow

Berliner? My arse. The only paper in Germany to share the Guardian's new format is the taz: same lower case fetish, but that's where the similarities end. One looks vaguely radical, the other like a corporate newsletter. And who said style wasn't substance?

Certainly not Alan Rusbridger, theguardian's editor, who's pimping out his pages to the highest bidder.

In an exclusive Press Gazette interview he said: "If I had to choose between occupying a niche on the left or being nearer the centre, whether you display that through your news reporting or your comment or both, I'm more comfortable saying this an upmarket, serious mainstream newspaper. There's more potential for growth there than taking comfort in political positioning."

The new-look Guardian will also embody Rusbridger's belief in "straight" news reporting, as opposed to the "viewspaper" model pioneered by The Independent in recent years.

He said: "I continue to believe that news is at the heart of a newspaper. It seems to me vital that the news is accurate, reliable and trustworthy and that people don't feel they are being spun a line."

Of course. Unless it's being spun by the government, big business or the military - in which case we'll report it as news, because news is at the heart of a newspaper and officialdom sets the news agenda, of which it comes top. Hooray! We're in hock to a cosy cartel - it's official:

UK media policy is dominated by a cosy cartel of politicians, government advisers and industry lobbyists, according to new research.

Despite government assertions that media policy is increasingly transparent, the report argues that it is centralised, opaque and controlled by a small number of advisers and media experts.

One day Rusbridger's rag rolls out these revelations; the next it's deriding their conclusions as conspiratorial. Enter the features pages, where not much else matters as long as it's written up with pizzaz. Hence Gore Vidal is just like Chomsky in Prada trainers. A proper Batty Boy:

"He may well be right about the malevolence of corporate America. But like most conspiracy theorists, Vidal's beliefs are so grand - for example, that the New York Times, General Electric and the nuclear industry are in cahoots to hoodwink the American people - that they rely on a rather optimistic view of human competence."

Chrs, Ms Brockes. Resplendent in your new colour photo byline - is it just my prejudices or do they all look so much more dysfunctional now you can see them properly? - you don't even have to trouble your pretty head with the contents of your own paper.

And it gets better on the leader page, where moral pygmies pronounce on the chaos in Iraq, under cover of anonymity:

"No one is arguing for an immediate pull-out, and Britain must discharge its responsibilities."

Of course. Would those include the hitherto undisclosed mission objectives of two undercover British agents who, disguised as Arabs, shot up the Basra police from a car that may or may not have contained explosives, depending on whether you believe the Iraqis on the scene, assorted aggrieved parties or the spin doctors in Whitehall? Of course not.

Nor does this dear leader include the swathes of antiwar campaigners who were arguing for withdrawal before "we" penetrated Iraq's borders in the first place. Still more alarmingly, however, at least from the perspective of logic, this absurd sentence also overlooks the front-page puff picture of new recruit Simon Jenkins beside the slogan:

"It's time to leave Iraq".

You couldn't make it up, part 94. Since they're obviously so anti-anti-American in the control room on Farringdon Road that they wouldn't want to give anyone the impression they were imbalanced, the only appropriate response seems to be: "Er, hello?"

Meanwhile, Mr Jenkins elaborates:

"Don't be fooled a second time. They told you Britain must invade Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong. Now they say British troops must stay in Iraq because otherwise it will collapse into chaos. This second lie is infecting everyone."

Including his new employers. Over to senior columnist Jonathan Freedland for a voice of reasonable whimsy: of course Tony Blair is abhorrent, but you can only hang a column off what somebody powerful said recently. Otherwise... Well, it would be like farting in church and it just isn't done. We're just cogs in a machine, what? So better not to stick a spanner in the works. Or is it?

Subject: Tony Blair
Date: September 21, 2005 16:00:21 BST
To: freedland@guardian.co.uk

Hi Jonathan,

I was puzzled by your latest column, in which you castigated Labour MPs for their supine acceptance of their leader's crimes in terms that applied almost equally to your own comments on the subject: "There is no outrage, just a shrug of the shoulders."

You observe that "there is no realistic way of getting rid of him." To what extent do you think journalists can contribute to that end? On the strength of today's mild-mannered musings on page 31, it would seem that the answer is not a lot. In which case, is there any such thing as a Fourth Estate?

I look forward to your response.

Thanks and best wishes,

[Raoul]

I should be so lucky: still waiting for a reply to this.

The access of evil

2005-07-14T10:16:00.000+01:00

What drives a person to blow themselves up along with numerous innocents?

Who can say except those who do, who by definition can't. All that can be said for certain is that there is no conclusive answer, which makes protestations to the contrary particularly irksome, above all when they serve to justify The Great War For Civilisation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Pure evil, they hate our values and other such warmed-over nostrums are as absurd as the notion that the criminal conduct of coalition forces and their masters explains everything while they exhort us never to surrender. Which isn't to say there's a Third Position that makes sense either.

So where's the voice of reason? Who can explain the unexplainable: where do we go from here? The words are coming out all weird.

What's surely beyond dispute is that Iraq cannot be airbrushed out of the analysis of What Went Wrong when War Tone declared we'd have to pay a "blood price" for mortgaging our national security to Pentagon planners.

We must fight Them on the Euphrates. Or between it and the Tigris. Or the Rubicon or the Styx. Or something.

Anyhow, it's one thing to argue that the insurgency in Iraq must be defeated by those whose invasion kicked it off, but quite another to avoid the conclusion that the war was anything other than "a strategic error of the first order", to quote Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama.

In the words of the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory panel:

"American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims."

In testimony before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Professor Paul Wilkinson, a leading authority on political violence, clarified the serious debate:

"Well, I think although all of us would breathe a great sigh of relief at the overthrow of the brutal Saddam regime, most observers on counter-terrorism would accept that there was a very serious downside to the war in Iraq as far as counter-terrorism against al-Qaeda is concerned because al-Qaeda was able to use the invasion of Iraq as a propaganda weapon."

No shit Sherlock. Even the Commander-in-Chief seems to acknowledge this, although he passes it off as part of a suck 'em in to whack 'em doctrine that his own intelligence services struggle to comprehend.

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, a U.S. counterterrorism official said on Wednesday.

A classified report from the U.S. spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of deadly skills, from car bombings and assassinations to tightly coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, the official said.

Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.

To cap it all, the same British spooks who signed off on Blair's dodgy dossiers on WMD, warned our dear leader and his senior colleagues that his misdirected war against nastiness would have nasty consequences:

"The [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."

This is where it starts to get tricky and reason flounders in search of reasons, both for the distinction and the ever elusive Root Cause, in light of which the latest leak of Whitehall's collective wisdom is a sobering read, without apologising for anything:

"It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments (and often those of Muslim governments), in particular Britain and the US. This is particularly significant in terms of the concept of the 'Ummah', i.e. that Believers are one 'nation'. This seems to have gained a significant prominence in how some Muslims view HMG's policies towards Muslim countries.

"Perceived Western bias in Israel's favour over the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a key long term grievance of the international Muslim community which probably influences British Muslims.

"This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11. The perception is that passive 'oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to 'active oppression' - the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam."

Hardly news, but this worldview is going to take some dismantling with things as they stand. And so once more unto the breach: the chicken and egg story about Western foreign policy and the politics of jihadism. A superficial sketch:

"For more than 60 years, Britain and America created, armed and funded tyrants across Muslim lands in exchange for access to oil and for co-operation in the Cold War. Whenever there were shoots of democracy or Islamic reformation - like the election of Mossadeq in 1951 in Iran - our governments destroyed them. Any wannabe democrats were swiftly tortured and killed. Generations of Arab democrats - their Garibaldis, Jeffersons or Chartists - were lost to history.

"In this warped environment, an undemocratic opposition movement was born. The Middle East was turned into a petri dish for the virus of Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism. Since democracy was not an option, this austere form of Islam grew in popularity as the only alternative outlet for rage at the obvious corruption of Western proxy rulers. It is a simple philosophy, expressed eloquently by every radical Islamist I have met."

Fuelled by oil politics, our dance with death in the Middle East continues, mitigated only by the insistence that democracy must prevail in the heart of darkness, which might variously be considered to be Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or, until the more comprehensible attack on Afghanistan, Mullah Omar's men against merriness, who don't appear to have vanished yet any more than Dick Cheney has been delivered his desire: the plattered head of Osama bin Forgotten.

In which case, why invade Iraq? The pre-war self-justificatory conflation of Jihadism and Ba'athism continues unabated, only now it's no longer a joke. And a withdrawal, were such a thing conceivable in light of our energy dependence and its significance to Middle East policy, would barely begin to undo the damage done. It certainly wouldn't bring back the dead.

Instead we appear to be stuck in this rut as the rot sets in, while the demand for a restored Islamic Empire threatens the foundations of our own, to say nothing of the existence of Israel. But we're rarely treated to an explanation by the wordsmiths of Western supremacy, for whom the defence of our values on foreign soil is as non-negotiable as the American way of life:

"A demand to abandon Western civilisation is not in our power to meet, and we should be proud to attract hatred from such atavistic forces."

To which specific demand does this refer? None exists except in the author's interpretation of the consequences of restoring the Caliphate to the jihadis, which would in any case be a Bad Thing for those unfortunate enough to have to submit to their totalitarian strictures, assuming it's not just the power of our nightmares which assumes they could triumph.

Britain's foremost writer on the subject is unconvinced:

"Today, the structure that was built in Afghanistan has been destroyed, and bin Laden and his associates have scattered or been arrested or killed. There is no longer a central hub for Islamic militancy. But the al Qaeda worldview, or 'al Qaedaism,' is growing stronger every day. This radical internationalist ideology - sustained by anti-Western, anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic rhetoric - has adherents among many individuals and groups, few of whom are currently linked in any substantial way to bin Laden or those around him. They merely follow his precepts, models, and methods. They act in the style of al Qaeda, but they are only part of al Qaeda in the very loosest sense. That's why Israeli intelligence services now prefer the term 'jihadi international' instead of 'al Qaeda.'"

Whether or not the freelance franchises of Global McJihad prevail depends to a large extent on the outcome of a concerted and consensual battle for the soul of Islam, or at the very least its adherents:

"In our interconnected world, the people who now count most are not our security and emergency services, brave and competent though they are, but the hopes, fears, expectations and views of 1.3 billion Muslims, whether in Beirut, Bradford, London, Riyadh or Kuala Lumpur. They will decide who are martyrs and who are murderers."

Which brings us back home to the questions of roosting chickens, the enemy within and an estimated 16,000 adherents to the discombobulated distortions of religious rhetoric that serve to rally foot soldiers for the cold calculations of suicide bombing.

Since the abolition of religion remains as distant a fantasy as world peace and an end to living in tribes, a reformation of Islam is the new priority. "Uproot this ideology of evil" declares the Prime Minister. Time for the moderates to root out apostasy: fatwa off back down the hole you crawled out of, tabloids scream at the fundamentalists.

It's part of the process, to be sure. But what of the trigger mechanisms beyond our shores?

"The truth is that no amount of condemnation of evil and self-righteous resoluteness will stop terror attacks in the future. Respect for the victims of such atrocities is supposed to preclude open discussion of their causes in the aftermath - but that is precisely when honest debate is most needed."

It is an insult to the dead to deny the link with Iraq, declares the editor of The Guardian's comment pages. Indeed, as this eloquent northerner reminds CNN by butting into a live broadcast. But it is also an insult to intelligence to deny the importance of ideology which feeds off Western policy and its consequences, otherwise this sort of disclaimer just reads like an arse-cover:

"The London bombers were to blame for attacks on civilians that are neither morally nor politically defensible.

Clearly. But what drove them to do it? This is where leaps of faith of our own start to kick in if we're not careful. Draining the swamps of grievances for Jihadism to feed off is only one dimension of the struggles ahead. In short, the causal connection remains unproven:

"We can't of course be sure of the exact balance of motivations that drove four young suicide bombers to strike last Thursday, but we can be certain that the bloodbath unleashed by Bush and Blair in Iraq - where a 7/7 takes place every day - was at the very least one of them. What they did was not "home grown", but driven by a worldwide anger at US-led domination and occupation of Muslim countries.

Yeah but no but. It is also driven by an ideology which retails itself to Muslims as the legitimising rationale for indiscriminate killing and glossing over this missing link only serves to polarise the debate further when the importance of new coalitions is as paramount as the need to dismantle the corrupt one democratising with extreme prejudice.

And this is the real problem: how can any headway be made when it depends on overlooking the elephant in the room in Iraq, since that's apparently just not up for discussion? The only possible answer, dissatisfying as it may be, is to recognise the distinction between ideology and blowback, which requires widespread acknowledgement of the sources of mass anger in policies rejected by swathes of the British establishment in the first place.

Only then might such words of wisdom as the following be worth heeding:

"A first step towards 'confronting the voices of evil head on' is recognising the indivisible nature of Islamist terror against civilians anywhere in the world.

"Condemning terrorist attacks directed against civilians wherever they are located is an essential part of recognising extremism within the Muslim community. It is central, not simply because it recognises a universal human rights standard, but because acceptance of such murders as "understandable" or even "justified" is itself a part of the mindset which facilitates the journey of nice lads from Yorkshire into the hands of the salafi jihadists, who tell them that they too will be a hero to their friends, their family, and the whole Muslim people.

"Furthermore, if understanding of, or applause for, the murderers of civilians abroad becomes your mindset, you will be surprised again and again when your neighbour, who you thought had just become a bit more pious, turns out to be an ideologically driven mass murderer. You did not spot him then, and you wil not spot him next time."

In the end, all the posturing about geopolitics only matters if it's informed by this awareness while the moralising only has meaning if it's rooted in an appreciation of the consequences of our policies.

And if the fusion of these worldviews depends on our willingness to downsize consumption or go nuclear, it seems safe to say we're pretty fucked, one way or another. But I'm sure the Dunkirk spirit will help us through the Blitz.

If not, we can always rely on the words of Wilfred Owen to keep us company on the Tube:

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

My school had this motto emblazoned above the stage of its assembly hall as an epitaph, together with a list of alumni slaughtered in its name. To this day I cannot be certain what message this was supposed to convey.

I wish I'd hacked it to pieces instead of engraving my name on desks and becoming a hack.

Barbarism begins at home...

2005-07-08T08:49:00.000+01:00

In the corporate media bubble

Thanks Reuters. Great ad.

Quoth a senior news executive:

"We are a capitalist company providing capitalist news..."

But not about the biggest armed robbery in history. Another world is possible. We hope. This one's days are numbered.

No pierced labia...

2005-06-14T08:55:00.000+01:00

...no story

AL Kennedy on da meeja:

"Today, of course, we have Vietnam II, the BBC is in tatters, Deep Throat turns out to be a mad-eyed geezer with a book deal and Ellsberg is still appealing for whistleblowers when no one will print their revelations unless they involve pierced labia, or Castro having sex with a dog. While all other public figures cannot appear in any format without being at least partially naked, sexually reassigned and/or masturbating a farm animal, our politicians are cocooned by embedded sycophancy. Not that I'd want to see Blair stripped with his parts in a jar and laying hands on a helpless donkey, but equally I am very tired of bombshells such as the Downing Street memo bringing us no nearer a transatlantic war crimes tribunal."

Readers write back in disgust at the product of these perversions:

"I do not read the 'big' newspapers because I am sick and tired of being lied to and manipulated with lies and non-factual stories that are designed by big business and almost always in their favor. I am not necessarily a 'right' or 'left' wing person, but I can see the newspapers manipulation of facts to appease their biggest customers." (Guardian non-reader)

Keep tryin' to keep it real while makin' it up; the motto of modern journalism is loyalty to the caste, preferably unconscious.

"It took six months for Henry Higgins to mold Eliza Doolittle into a duchess. If a Higgins was around, I had no idea how to find him. I didn’t even know I should be looking."

Imposters and fraudsters unite, you have nothing to lose but your brains.

"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse." (The Journalist and the Murderer, by Janet Malcolm)

Cue paranoid depression: Fourth Estate = 4 the state.

Whither whither?

2005-06-13T14:57:00.000+01:00

On the wall...

The message is the medium is the product is the peddler. Stars in their eyes, innit?

"Reporters must be strong story-tellers and writers, have a drive for original and challenging journalism, and be hungry to get on screen."

Style snorts at substance again.

Which means it's time to bestow hope and deliverance on our little brown brothers. Take Uganda:

"The reluctance of rich countries to make waves in a country held up as an African development success story has let the conflict fester - despite massive suffering at the hands of a brutal rebel group that forces children into battle and cuts off the lips of its enemies."

Roll up, roll up for some human rights fundamentalism in the heart of starkness.

"For the militia of abducted villagers and teenage gunmen terrorising northern Uganda, the first step towards justice crushes an egg."

How quaint, we scoff: watch and gurn (streaming movie).

Letter to The New York Times

2005-05-13T15:41:00.000+01:00

Unpublished

A month out of sync, time keeps on tripping in the computer:

Date: June 7, 2005 10:52:20 BST
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Re: uncover your eyes

To The Editor:

Nicholas Kristof ("Uncover Your Eyes", Column, June 7) refers to "the fear that Darfur may be another black hole of murder and mutilation, a hopeless quagmire to suck in well-meaning Americans - another Somalia or Iraq."

Since the quagmire in Iraq and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents are the direct product of an American invasion, ostensibly to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime of weapons it did not possess, I would be interested to see the evidence that has convinced Mr. Kristof of Washington's well-meaningness.

Yours etc...

[Raoul]

Cannon-ised

2005-04-11T12:58:00.000+01:00

The last rites

Ever uninfallible, the Pope must die. Praise the fraud: it's a miracle!

Meanwhile, all that remains of The Great Pontiff-icator is his unholy dream for a requiem, courtesy of a double-thumbed fist of artillery.

"I'd like to have several explosions. He loved explosions."

Quite. Even the Imperial Holy Tribute confessed the earth had moved. Eat the Rich for a taste of the truth: what's missing from The News is the news. But what about the backing track for this last post? Hang onto your guts for the lowest common denominator:

"Through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way."

Shrink-rapped and rotten to the core; 'twas ever thus with enlightenment values. So what to do? R.I.P. to the rusting pieces arresting peace: the journey is the destination.

"This is the moment. A planet brings forth an opportunity like this only once in its lifetime, and we are ready, and we are poised. And as a community we are ready to move into it, to claim it, to make it our own.

"It's there. Go for it, and thank you."

Don't believe the hype: it's all over.

The End.

The Missing Link

2005-03-01T14:02:00.000Z

From the recovered memory hole

So what's news?

Freedom fries

2005-02-26T10:59:00.000Z

Through Gonzo'd eyes?

Courtesy of The Fixer of Palestine comes this free dispatch [36 MB download] from Iraq:

Funny, haha? Not really, which is after all the point. Check out Doonesbury. He's onto it:

Since Flacks Americana have daubed the Madison Avenue Machine Corps in Gonzo technicolour; imbibing the maxim "when things turn weird, the weird turn pro"; it's hardly surprising that Hacks Britannica are being exhorted to emulate their Uncle Duke's quest for The New Journalism's ultimate high; and The Empire's new low:

"At a time when the media on both sides of the Atlantic are going through a period of self-examination, perhaps the greatest memorial for 'Duke' would be for journalists everywhere to aspire to that same intellectual independence which [Hunter] Thompson embodied - even if they have neither the desire nor the constitution to imitate his intake of dangerous substances. When he ran for local public office on a libertarian platform in the 70s he found himself up against a crew-cut Republican. Thompson duly shaved his own head and then referred to his Republican rival as 'my long-haired opponent'.

"We'll miss him."

Err... no you won't, as we've already established. Far too lacking in nuance, what? Quoth the Grauniad's observer-in-chief:

"Do you get people thinking by hammering them or [sic] the head? Or by gently poising a point as a question they may care to ponder?" (Michael White, email to The Gurgling Ulcer, October 2004)

Well, being the very antithesis of a news outlet, this screed seeks to avoid topicality and relevance wherever possible. But now the drugs don't work, as today's Telegraph reminds us, it is perhaps fitting to mark our appreciation of Doctor Thompson's delicious elixir:

"As he retreated from the front line of journalism, he became a freak show on the corner of American pop culture.

Is that supposed to be an indictment of a man who recalls Our Leader with such clarity?

"I remember Bush as a kind of a butt-boy for the smart people. This was in the late 1970s, when he was in his drunken-fool period. He couldn't handle liquor. He knew who I was, at that time, because I had a reputation as a writer. I knew he was part of the Bush dynasty. But he was nothing, he offered nothing, and he promised nothing. He had no humour. He was insignificant in every way and consequently I didn't pay much attention to him. But when he passed out in my bathtub," Thompson adds, "then I noticed him. I'd been in another room, talking to the bright people. I had to have him taken away."

Little wonder then that the great shark Hunter spawned such a menagerie of mimics:

"A great number of feature journalists, when starting out, want to be Hunter S Thompson. Unfortunately, many tend to want to be him in the wrong way..."

Indeed. Throughout most of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas I wondered why anyone would want to be in any way remotely similar. For, as the man himself remarked in one of his alter ego's brief moments of clarity:

"There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge."

Except perhaps the muppet hacks pumping bile into the ether...

Of all the verbiage spouted this week in tribute to the original Doctor of Spin, I enjoyed the Counterpunch curmudgeonliness best of all:

"I guess I can call myself one of the Dylan generation since, at 63, I'm the same age as him but the prose stylists that allured an Anglo-Irish lad hopelessly strapped into the corsets of Latinate gentility were always those of American rough-housers: first, in the mid-fifties Jack Kerouac, then Edward Abbey, then Hunter Thompson.

"Thank God I never tried to imitate any of them. Thompson probably spawned more bad prose than anyone since Hemingway, but they all taught me that at its most rapturous, its most outraged, its most exultant, American prose can let go and teach you to let go, to embrace the vastness, the richness, the beauty and the grotesqueries of America in all its thousand landscapes.

"I tried to re-read Kerouac's On The Road a few years ago and put it down soon enough. That's a book for excited teenagers. Abbey at full stretch remains a great writer and he'll stay in the pantheon for all time. Lately sitting in motels along the highway I've been sipping into his diaries, Confessions of a Barbarian, and laughing every couple of pages. 'Writing for the National Geographic,' Abbey grumbled, 'is like trying to masturbate in ski mitts.'"

Which was almost as cutting as the critique crafted by the creator of Shotgun Golf, who declared death to wordsmithery and all of its sycophants:

"Why bother with newspapers, if this is all they offer? Agnew was right. The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage." (Hunter Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)

What an epitaph. It ought to be tattooed inside reporters' eyelids. In braille.

UPDATE: Yet another letter to the editor:

Date: February 26, 2005 13:42:36 GMT
To: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
Cc: s.milne@guardian.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, r.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk

Dear Mr Rusbridger,

I note with interest that this week's Guardian tributes to Hunter S. Thompson, including the selection of Gonzo quotes ("In his own words", 21 February), eschewed this verdict on the fourth estate:

"Why bother with newspapers, if this is all they offer? Agnew was right. The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage." (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, 1971)

"We'll miss him," concluded your leader of 22 February ("A libertarian legacy"), exhorting scribes to imbibe Dr Thompson's delicious elixir in pursuit of "intellectual independence" in the face of "the current debate about whether or not journalists are too disrespectful of politicians".

The evidence suggests otherwise, although it is never too late to redeem oneself.

In that spirit, perhaps you could advise me when you will be devoting your front page to the logical culmination of this week's revelations about Lord Goldsmith's "advice" and the push for war: an outraged call for the Prime Minister's resignation or impeachment, supported by an analysis of why your newspaper has taken so long to apprise its readers in plain English of the gravity of his high crimes and misdemeanours.

Richard Norton-Taylor's article on Wednesday ("Revealed: the rush to war", 23 February) quoted the reference by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, in her letter of resignation as a Foreign Office legal advisor, to the invasion of Iraq as a "crime of aggression". I'm sure I need not remind you of the Nuremberg Tribunal's designation of this offence as "the supreme international crime".

Thank you for your time; I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

[Raoul]

Fear and loathing indeed.

CORRECTION: The quoted diatribe on journalism comes from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, published in 1971, not Rolling Stone magazine from 1994, as originally stated.

The confusion appears to have stemmed from Marc Cooper's blog and circulated into my email via a host of websites. Damn that infotainment super high way.

Greetings, earthlings!

2005-02-14T10:42:00.000Z

We wub you rewy much

Oh, how we laughed. The bespectacled buffoon so lovingly lampooned as a polyester-clad puppet stole our hearts with a close encounter of the turd kind, chatting away the chilliness with the angel of death herself.

Chin, chin!

Now like who'da thunk it but hey, it was all just a photo opportunity, last week's New York Times informed us:

TOKYO, Feb. 10 - In a surprising admission, North Korea's hard-line Communist government declared publicly today for the first time that it has nuclear weapons.

It also said that it will boycott United States-sponsored regional talks designed to end its nuclear program, according to a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement transmitted today by the nation's wire service.

Pyongyang said it has "manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's undisguised policy to isolate and stifle" North Korea, and that it will "bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal."

Whoah, hang on a minute, Noam Chomsky told a throng of New Mexicans on the doorstep of destruction. Let's not get blown away by all this nonsense when we got weaponised stratospheres on our radar and extra nukes in the budget:

"Last summer, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is very sober and respectable and not given to hyperbole, ran an article by two prominent strategic analysts, John Steinbrenner and Nancy Gallagher, in which they pointed out, these are mostly quotes, that the military programs and aggressive stance of the administration, carry in their words, 'appreciable risk of ultimate doom', and they go on to say that you have to look very hard -- in fact, I can't think of a case where such words have ever been pronounced in establishment -- respectable establishment circles. They go on to say that, 'If the United States is to remain a democracy worthy of the name, the political system will have to acknowledge that the United States is now the dominant threat to everyone else.' Their words. The 'super outlaw state.'"

Oh now really. This is too much. Shut up already. That's like so beside the point. And waiting to point it all out to us was an Economist scribe.

Annals of Journalism

Kudoes [sic] to the New York Times for making possibly the most egregious use of the unsourced third party quote in history:
But in today's statement, Pyongyang zeroed in on Dr. Rice's testimony last month in her Senate confirmation hearings, where she lumped North Korea with five other dictatorships, calling them "outposts of tyranny."

"The true intention of the second-term Bush administration is not only to further its policy to isolate and stifle the D.P.R.K. pursued by the first-term office, but to escalate it," the statement said, referring to North Korea by its formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Outside critics and defectors say that North Korea is neither democratic nor popular, since it has been ruled for the last 60 years by the Kim family, an avaricious clan that does not permit multiparty elections or the slightest whisper of dissent. Today Pyongyang told the Bush administration to talk to the kinds of North Koreans it likes.

Wouldn't want to go out on a limb there by just saying outright that North Korea is a brutal dictatorship led by a man who is neck-in-neck with Michael Jackson for the title of "weirdest human being on the planet". Better dredge up some "critics" to make the point so you won't have to defend such an outlandish accusation.

The learned Ms Galt has clearly never tried sneaking things past a New York Times sub. It's wholesale distortion or busted; preserves the illusion of objectivity, you see. Such qualms do not trouble Ms Galt's employers, who trade in a mercurial blend of fact and whimsy that allows them to call "the mercurial dictator['s]" bluff:

"Lashing out under pressure is a Kim trademark. So is demanding hefty bribes, from China and others, for better behaviour. Mr Kim may yet change his mind again about the nuclear talks. But expect him to take his time about it."

So now we know, as one does if one takes The Economist. But what is this thing that it is? Let's take the long view back down memory lane from the perspective of the pundits of Washington think-tankery:

"At Albright's side stood Kim Jong-il, who took a double risk in 2000: not just in embarking on this opening, but in sacrificing his own long-honed personal purdah for a new public role--first visiting China, then welcoming Vladimir Putin as well as Kim Dae-jung--from which there can be no going back. A memorable Economist cover caught the moment with the irreverent caption: 'Greetings, earthlings.' But if spaceship DPRK has finally landed, what exactly do the aliens and their newly visible yet still inscrutable chief want? The skeptical view, that this is just the latest bold move in Pyongyang's old poker game rather than a whole new leaf, will gain added weight with a Republican president in the White House."

Good golly. It was written. Now just how did they know which way the Kimaraderie would crumble? Cynics say The Economist likes to cut through the fug of propaganda with propaganda of its own. Thinking man's porn, innit?

"The Economist is a publication that always seems to present the issues in such a seemingly unbiased manner, citing the pros and cons of each position but in such a way that the corporate interest approximates the best solution."

Hmm, sleight of hand to put the The New York Times to shame: nice work, fellas. No wonder sales have been on the up under Bill Emmott's tutelage. Who cares about the politicians when you're in with the guys behind them, with interest, and your rivals still think George Bush is "Man of the Year"?

"Yet how can 75 people, however brainy, attempt to explain the world in a week? Well, loftiness helps. Emmott is not on Blair's Chequers guestlist; access to the White House or Number 10 is not an issue. 'I do not expect a visit from Mr Blair. The thing is, we don' t care. We don't have to hunt for scraps of news and leaks from the government, we are in a different market. That makes the paper less vulnerable to journalists making things up, or sources making things up to tell journalists.'

No need for that. The establishment ethos is in-built when your institution's at the heart of Clubland:

"The territory we are talking about comprises the dogleg of Pall Mall and St James's Street, S.W.1., as well as the immediate environs. The message transmitted by each of these imposing buildings, none with a name on its door, is a very simple one: This is a private institution: Go away."

A million sales and counting, more than four out of five overseas.

"That is the odd thing. The Economist may be edited in the heart of St James's, but it seems to be a stronger force abroad than in Britain."

Not too hard to fathom, surely. With the information lockdown in force across the pond, is it really so strange that people are eager to decipher what drives policy from a junior partner's perspective? Love it or hate it, neoclassical conservative liberalism still calls some of the shots.

According to the Guardian's media monkey's perusal of The Economist's sales figures, a solitary copy a week is dispatched to a lone subscriber in Cuba:

"Word has it that the free-market capitalist organ is posted to one Fidel Castro."

Well I never. You'll be telling us Nelson Mandela rates it next. Even if he does call Bliar the American foreign minister.

The Trials of Mephisto Le Bitchins

2005-02-09T17:50:00.000Z

A mirror conspiracy production

Call me lazy, but as befits a cut 'n' paste hack, my motto was always "cheat and steal".

And this was simply irresistible, especially to a man bent double over surfeits of blimpishness from the contrarian-in-chief.

Quoth his longtime friend via a medium:

"On 11th September 2001, a small group of terrorists crashed the planes they had hijacked into the Twin Towers of New York. Among the casualties, although unreported that week, was a middle-aged Nation columnist called Christopher Hitchens. He was never seen again. The vile replica currently on offer is a double."

Ah, Vanity Fair: mirrors, mirrors on my walls, who is the throbbing cock and balls? Arise, Sir Chance-a-lot; the new missionary position is Cruise Missile Leftism and the anti-Islamofarcist crusades, in which a bludgeoning bellend is the height of shock and awe.

Three years on, his sense and sensibility as pickled as The Onion's innards, Mummy's Favourite Curmudgeon treated us all to his pre-election pissy fit in uncut column inches:

"'Anybody But Bush' -- and this from those who decry simple-mindedness -- is now the only glue binding the radical left to the Democratic Party right. The amazing thing is the literalness with which the mantra is chanted. Anybody? Including Muqtada al-Sadr? The chilling answer is, quite often, yes. This is nihilism. Actually, it's nihilism at best. If it isn't treason to the country -- let us by all means not go there -- it is certainly treason to the principles of the left."

Perhaps he'd been taking lessons from the mentor he skewered in the year of his Damascene conversion to credulity? His dinner party schtick about Talibanism certainly smacks of the eminence grise's verdict on the need to bump off the elected president of Chile by coup d'etat. And on the 11th of September to boot:

"In a famous expression of his contempt for democracy, Kissinger once observed that he saw no reason why a certain country should be allowed to 'go Marxist' merely because 'its people are irresponsible'."
(Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Verso, 2001, p.55, paperback edition)

Ah, but the dark forces of Global McJihad are the very antithesis of Enlightenment thinking, you see, so tighten your Beltway and buckle up. For we must act wherever they pop up their ragheads, bashing them down before their smoking guns turn into mushroom clouds, or the recreationally stimulating downers of our inner cities, perhaps by way of The Company. Or something. Never mind the time out of joint in any case: who wants to hear what sand niggers think?

"Despite current predictions of a protracted global war between the West and the Islamic world, I believe that war is over. There may be intermittent battles in the decades to come, with many innocent victims. But the number of supporters of armed Islamism is unlikely to grow, its support throughout the Arab Muslim world will likely decline, and the opposition by other Muslim groups will surely grow. 9/11 signaled the last gasp of Islamism rather than the beginnings of its global challenge."

Anyway, when A Reader took exception by letter to the logical phalluses of the Great I Am's election intervention, in colourful language it appears, although accompanied by his card with a telephone number, he received an interesting phone call. In case that link never works again, here's the gist:

"Mr. Lindgren, it's Christopher Hitchens calling you here. I get a lot of letters from uncultured idiots, as I daresay you can imagine, and I normally simply toss them. But I'm obliged to keep a list, and share it, of letters that might be menacing, or from people who are unstable or in some clinical condition, and one way I decide that is if they use, or resort to, four letter words and sign it themselves -- and you've just made the cut. You made the list, and it will be shared. I hope this is our last contact... but it might not be. Goodbye."

Eek! The shadow strikes back, projected down a crackly line. All it lacks is cackling. So now we get down, dirty an' jiggy wit' it. Old news, you may say and you'd be right. But I had to stick my thing in before cutting it off for the main event:

"It seemed almost that this catastrophe was no accident at all, but fate arranging to put his verbal facility to the ultimate test, permitting him the opportunity to exhibit to all the world the extent of the powers of the superhero within, Verbalman, SmartAlec The Great, Witt Schmidtt the Invincible Contradictor, The Incredible Sophistical Swipesman, Mordent Witt The Indomitable Logic Exterminator, Lethal Witt The Unbeatable Meaning Evaporator, Witt Schmidtt The Insuperable Impregnable Obstinator, an unarmed Cyrano with the teen idol nose, whose esprit foudroyant could flay to shreds with a few whirring passes any proposition, any assertion, any argument, however factual, however rational and incontrovertible, brought against him, awing Judge, Jury, press and television audience with the sheer deft dazzling splendour of his mental agility and his utter disregard for sense."

Yes, dear reader, we finally find out what's behind those cold eyes; you just had to claw your way through his disguise. So, who got dat man by dem short an' curlies? Over to Alphonse van Worden again for the grand finale, part one:

"Yes, it was destiny conspiring to offer him a stage on which to strut his stuff to the limit, to prove the true extent of his gifts, to silence those who dismissed him as a tiresome clown tap dancing away in columns wedged between Prada and Lancome advertisements, an eyeball magnet drawing conspicuous consumer items to the attention of drearily unimaginative nouveaux riches. He would put all that to rest by successfully defending himself, with an arsenal of nothing but dry remarks, sarcasm, bored looks and patrician vowels, against an open and shut case of manslaughter. Witt Schmidtt, guilty as sin, caught by four different cameras in flagrante, condemned by a storeroom of physical evidence, would not only walk away a free man, but would dismantle forever the corrupt edifice of American criminal law with the mighty swift sword of his tongue, and at the same time exceed even Princess Diana in both image-recognition and Q-score."

Oops, Witt Schmidt. It seems the problem is you. And you and you and... me. And we, the people. And you can't get more anti-anti-American than that, to coin a cliche, although it's always more fun to point the finger, now ain't that right, butthead?

Comment is free...

2005-02-07T19:56:00.000Z

But facts are sacred

Know. Now. As a senior editor at one of the world's biggest news organisations put it to me recently:

"We are a capitalist company providing capitalist news ... we do not go in for campaigning."

Er, right. Indeed. After all, we wouldn't want any subliminal editorialising from a company that prides itself on freedom from "bias of any kind". No, far better to let it all hang out like the French:

"We could put these remarks beside comments by Patrick Le Lay of French media giant TF1. Describing his company’s mission he said: 'The job of TF1 is to help Coca-Cola to sell its product. What we sell to Coca-Cola is an availability of human brain-time'. Such statements express starkly the dangers inherent in the overlap of information and marketing. Obsessive commercialism directly contradicts the ethics of journalism."

Carry on regardless; it's really quite a farce:

"Commercial interests can make substantial inroads into journalism without readers even realising it. Walter Wells, editor of the International Herald Tribune (which belongs to the New York Times, a company that is quoted on the stock exchange) recently warned of the dangers of press enterprises going public on the Stock Exchange. As he said, when people take an editorial decision they have to ask themselves whether it will raise or lower the value of their publishing company’s shares. This has become a major preoccupation. Editors constantly receive directives from a paper’s financial owners, which is something new in journalism."

You say cutback, we say fightback. And other cliches. Like the bottom line's the bottom line, so get real about the race to the bottom.

Trouble at t' pump?

2005-02-01T22:35:00.000Z

Bring it on...

While our democratised Iraqi brethren bask in the afterglow of Sunday's noble feats of fuel economy, the granddaddy of mass production has tanks for the memory that oil rationing is still some way off over here.

Not so in the Mesopotamian capital:

"Baghdad's petrol stations are drier this month than they have been since just after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some drivers wait for as much as 24 hours, sleeping in their vehicles. When told that there is no petrol, some have lost their tempers and started shooting. How, asks a furious driver, can an oil-producing country run out of fuel?"

Hey, the lesson of the Boer War was "Be Prepared", which was why "we" invented concentration camps. Jolly good thing too, what? Might come in handy some day. For now, though, Ford has other ideas:

"As the population shifts back to the big cities, you'll need a rolling urban command center. Enter the SYNUS concept vehicle, a mobile techno sanctuary sculpted in urban armor and inspired by the popular B-cars of congested international hotspots. Short and slim for easy city maneuvering, it looks bank-vault tough on the outside - with intimidating and outrageous styling that even features a vault-style spinner handle in back with deadbolt door latching."

Outta my way asshole. That's right: the American way of life is not negotiable.

Iran now, Iraq then

2005-01-28T10:02:00.000Z

Never again, they said

With Iran in the sights, let's look back at just some of the lies we were told about Iraq.

Compare and contrast...

1) "[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
(US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amr Moussa, Ittihadiya Palace, Cairo, Egypt 24th February 2001, quoted in CBS News item: "Powell '01: WMDs Not 'Significant'". Video viewable here)

2) "...let's remember that his [Saddam Hussein's] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
(US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, on CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 29th July 2001. Video viewable here)

3) "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox [1998] to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs."
(CIA report, February 2003, quoted by NBC News on 24th February 2003)

...with the following and ask yourself what it all adds up to:

A) "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised..."
(US President George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, 17th March 2003, quoted by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post story: "Bush Recasts Rationale For War After Report", 10th October 2004)

B) "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
(US Vice President Dick Cheney, "Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention," 26th August 2002)

C) "Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
(US Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the UN Security Council, 5th February 2003)

D) "We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons..."
(British Prime Minister Tony Blair, NBC News, 3rd April 2002, quoted in "High crimes and Misdemeanours" by Peter Oborne, published in The Spectator, 28th August 2004)

When it's spelled out like that, what's left to say? Lost for words? David Traynier isn't:

"The drum beat for an attack on Iran is becoming louder with every passing day. From the governments of the US and UK - and their media - a steady stream of warnings, insinuations, and allegations is softening us up to support an assault on Iran by either Anglo-American forces or Israel."

But don't they got a dirty bomb packed down their Persian pyjamas? Ain't they gonna nuke us all in the name of Allah? Talk about suicide bombing: who needs a motive when you've got journalists taking dictation? Anyone remember why Saddam was supposed to be a threat to global stability?

"We can't win this war. We can do what [Bush is] doing. We can bomb them into the stone ages. Here's the other horrifying, sort of spectacular fact that we don't really appreciate. Since we installed our puppet government, this man, Allawi, who was a member of the Mukabarat, the secret police of Saddam, long before he became a critic, and is basically Saddam-lite. Before we installed him, since we have installed him on June 28, July, August, September, October, November, every month, one thing happened: the number of sorties, bombing raids by one plane, and the number of tonnage dropped has grown exponentially each month. We are systematically bombing that country. There are no embedded journalists at Doha, the Air Force base I think we're operating out of. No embedded journalists at the aircraft carrier, Harry Truman. That's the aircraft carrier that I think is doing many of the operational fights. There's no air defense, It's simply a turkey shoot. They come and hit what they want. We know nothing. We don't ask. We're not told. We know nothing about the extent of bombing. So if they're going to carry out an election and if they're going to succeed, bombing is going to be key to it, which means that what happened in Fallujah, essentially Iraq -- some of you remember Vietnam -- Iraq is being turn into a 'free-fire zone' right in front of us. Hit everything, kill everything." (Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, in a speech to the Steven Wise Free Synagogue)

Hmm... Back to Traynier's message:

"Remember these statements, the next time you listen to George W. Bush, Tony Blair or our 'impartial and honest' media tell us that we are threatened by the people of Iran."

Team America: World Police. Don'tcha just love it?

Stay tooned or kill your television: it's up to you, me and we, the people. Cuz we is democratic peepulz, innit.

The Corporate Ethos

2005-01-27T10:17:00.000Z

Onward. Upward.

More sweet nothings

2005-01-12T23:04:00.000Z

From the lady with the lamp

Ever the master of the bedside manner, our dear leader's wind-up doll hath once again soiled the sheets of my inbox.

From: CLWYDA@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: your email
Date: January 12, 2005 14:53:13 GMT

But it's all for my own good, isn't it nursey? Yes dear. Some victims are deserving; others are just shit on our shoes. Now take your medicine and pay attention to my idiot's lantern. You are feeling very sleepy...

To quote a stalker of the salons, who plies his trade as the living dead Lenin:

"Fallujah, like your worst date, has been fucked and forgotten. There is no need to be comprehensive in our review of the facts, and there is certainly no sensible dispute about them."

Ann Clwyd, the Prime Minister's can-carrying apologist for collateral damage, begs to differ, as befits a special envoy on human rights in Iraq. I'm sure she means well; for all her on-message bluster, this is a woman who started out as a champion of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, albeit unsurprisingly, this now equates to overlooking "our" violations of the laws and customs of war in the name of bringing them love, peace and harmony. Frankly, it's just not cricket; Mike Gatting takes care of that:

"We wanted our forces to achieve their ambition of creating a cricket centre for use when they're off-duty. It's one of the more unusual letters that MCC has received, but it's been a pleasure for us to provide a positive response to Sergeant Braddell's request. We hope that he, and his colleagues, enjoy using this equipment in Iraq. We look forward, too, to the troops' safe return when their work is complete."

Silly mid-off now, why don't you.

Of course, it's never quite so simple, although by destroying Falluja to save it, we've obviously hit the evil-doers over the boundary, beyond which its residents cower in tents. Another ashes victory in the war against nastiness, which fights back unabated, savaging anyone in its path. So where do we go from here? Don't you worry about that, dear, says the Blessed Annie. It'll all be over soon, just don't mention the death squads.

"It was the priority of the Iraqi Government, and that of the military forces supporting them, to keep the humanitarian impact of military action to an absolute minimum." (Email to The Gurgling Ulcer, 12 January, 2005)

The time has come, the lady said, for us to make amends: we broke some eggs to make new homes for our Iraqi friends.

"United States agencies have planned around 100 reconstruction projects in the Fallujah area totalling $84.1m, due to begin soon.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Ann"

Ah, bless. Just when I thought war was horrid, I'm reminded it's all beyond our control. Like an act of God, you see; no wonder the dark angel has no qualms. Never mind that Fear Factor nonsense, we're damn' well going to have an election. Stability might be worth paying a price for, if only it could be enforced, which means more of the infamous "cycle of violence" and we only talk about that in euphemisms.

What's the poor love supposed to say? A dose of reality simply isn't in the script. So we, the people, needn't trouble ourselves too much. We're doing good, as usual, after all, just like you learned at school. We is a democracy, innit? Now let's get back to job interview skills.

"They don't have to burn the books, they just have to make sure no one reads them."

Even better, let's watch more TV. Carry on, matron: I think I might be slipping into a coma.

EASYWAY

2005-01-08T17:33:00.001Z

A case study in reverse brainwashing

Roll up! Roll up?

Time to develop some resolution for the new year, I suppose; first, a word of caution, courtesy of this charming chap from across the pond:

"Before I make some meaningless resolutions for 2005, I'd like to take a moment to look back at the resolutions of 2004 to see how well I fared or how much I completely disregarded them. In the words of William Wallace, 'Do it, and let the Anglush see you do it.'"

Ahem. More willpower needed? Not according to Allen Carr, the self-styled global guru on stopping smoking, who claims to have outsold Harry Potter in Norway. Shurely shome mishtake, I hear the smokers cough. On the contrary, argues Carr. Addicting oneself to nicotine is not a pursuit for the weak-willed; hence his remedy consists of what amounts to self-hypnosis: lose your illusions. He speaks from experience; not just of 33 years of slow, self-induced suffocation:

"I thought my main antagonist would be the tobacco industry. Amazingly, my chief stumbling blocks were the very institutions that I thought would be my greatest allies: the media, the Government, organisations like ASH, QUIT and the established medical profession." (Allen Carr's Easy Way To Stop Smoking, 20th Anniversary Edition)

Yeah, right, you say. The guy's a bean-counter; he's just itching to maximise his profits. Perhaps:

"I appeared on a national TV programme with a doctor from ASH who had never smoked in her life and had never cured a single smoker, categorically informing the nation how the latest two and a half million pound government shock campaign would prevent youngsters from becoming hooked. If only the government had the common sense to give that money to me, I could have financed a campaign that would have guaranteed the death of nicotine addiction within a few years."

A bold claim and totally impossible to prove. But he says he's flogged four million books, so he must be doing something for someone, not least that well-meaning friend who foisted a copy upon me in the name of Christmas cheer. So what's the story?

"Can you imagine if there were ten different ways of treating appendicitis. Nine of them cured 10 percent of the patients, which means they killed 90 percent of them and the tenth way cured 95 percent. Imagine that knowledge of the tenth method had been available for over twenty years, but the vast majority of the medical profession was recommending the other nine."

Hang on. Maybe he's onto something. Who makes all that nicotine replacement therapy methadone substitute crap anyway? Funnily enough, it's Big Pharma, soon to be lampooned, somewhat ineptly, although with no doubt commendable overkill, by everybody's favourite moneybags-man-of-the-people, the one and only Michael Moore. Phew! I'm almost as breathless as him. Damn' fags.

Still, here's hoping he sparks up the debate: GlaxoSmithKline's net profit last year was a mere 4.5 billion pounds after all, so a few cheap shots and they're obviously going under. No wonder everyone's talking up their snake oil and their portfolio, says Carr:

"Because the medical profession, the media and charities like ASH and QUIT haven't a clue on helping smokers to quit, they concentrate on telling smokers what they already know: smoking is unhealthy, it's filthy and disgusting, it's unsociable and expensive. It never seems to occur to them that smokers do not smoke for the reasons they shouldn't smoke. The real problem is to remove the reasons that they do."

So get them onto the smoke-free nicotine? Ooh. The very thought of it. Next he'll be telling us the government relies on its stealth taxes to fund spending. Can't be true. People are giving up, even if I've been smoking for more than half my life and... Shit. The price of a pack of 20 has gone up more than 200 percent. Err...

"If when you finish the book, you feel that you owe me a debt of gratitude, you can more than repay that debt. Not just by recommending EASYWAY to your friends, but whenever you see a TV or radio programme, or read a newspaper article advocating some other method, write to them or phone them asking why they aren't advocating EASYWAY. That will start the avalanche and if I live to witness it, I will die a happy man."

Goodness: time for a cigarette, methinks. It's all a bit much. Any minute someone'll be telling us to pull these stunts on every lying presstitute in sight:

"I'm the illest rapper to hold a cordless, patrolling corners, looking for hookers to punch in the mouth with a roll of quarters..."

Shady? You betcha. Click here to find out more about life through the looking glass. And don't be afraid to dissent.

Merry Christmas

2005-01-06T13:54:00.000Z

Orthodox stylee

Serbia, A Nation Marinating In Its Own Self-Pity®, has a penchant for necrophilia.

Fuck the past!

According to popular myth, only unity can save Serbs, as the crooked crescent quadrant sorta spells out in Cyrillic, and mourning unites like nothing else. Blood and soil and all that machismo. Sweaty Slava is a broad church, however; Mother Russia's holes will take a lot of filling. Step forward Alexy for the sale of sanctified martyrdom disguised as tidings of comfort and joy:

"[M]oral ideals are alive in the people: facing death, many people manifested high examples of sacrificial love for their neighbors, laying down their lives for their friends, as the Holy Scripture says," the patriarch said.

Easy, brethren. Dem waters been risin' again. Take a leaf out of Mohammed's book, "Peace be upon him":

"Once the floodwater subsides and the corpses are buried or burned, there will be nothing else to obstruct our daily normality of killing each other and funding the war machine's exorbitant costs. It'll be time to resume our 'man-made disasters,' which we have learnt to accept with blissful disinterest and without much intellectual chattering about God and 18th-century philosophers. How pompous and full of condescension we humans are."

Not being a God-botherer to start with, the recent debate about why He/She/It allows such tragedies to befall us has failed to reactivate my metaphysical cold turkey. So it was refreshing to see rationalism trump superstition on the BBC for a change, as A Viewer notes:

"There really wasn't anywhere rational for the faithful to hide. The God lie could only be held up by the 'nice heaven afterwards' lie. But even thinking within the lie, surely such pragmatic forward planning is the trademark of human terrorists such as Bin Laden, Rumsfeld and Blair? 'We must slaughter babies now for the sake of future babies!'

"Deserted by rational argument only hollow platitudes were left: 'People will always return to faith', 'Faith in the afterlife provides comfort'. The first speaks nothing of eternal truth, it just describes a sad situation in the current intellectual climate. The second is just a rephrasing of 'Ignorance is bliss' with all the earthly hell that standpoint promotes."

What to do? Turn off, tune in and freak out; like the American guru says, It Was Written. So make a fuss.

"The New Year is here, and as we take stock of the state of the world and our nation, we must put media reform even higher on our priority list. The movement to fix our badly broken media system is gathering momentum, but the decisions made this year could resonate for decades to come.

"The frustrations of millions were echoed in Jon Stewart's no-nonsense critique of corporate media for 'hurting America,' shown live on CNN's Crossfire. People are tired of the media's partisan hackery, celebrity obsession, failure to hold government accountable, narrow range of debate, unchecked commercialism, and lack of investigative journalism."

To change the record or hang the DJ? It's too close to call. So rather than trouble you with the details, let's cross to Bethlehem for some chinstroking instead of all that cock-in-hander crap masquerading as analysis. It is Christmas Eve, after all, except for all those unorthodox contrarians with their satanic verses and qabalistic number-crunching:

BETHLEHEM, West Bank (Reuters) - Christmas cheer is undergoing a renaissance in the town where Jesus was born.

Yes, yes, y'all, who got the vibe? It's the scribe corps. Still fronting en masse for the Pharisees, if only between the lines? Heaven forbid. All just part of the collective self-delusion known as groupthink, which really ought to beg the question: who gets it? As usual, the answer is what. Confused? You will be.

So, cruel world, what does one do to get in the mood for an orthodox Christmas? Brace yourselves: Santa won't come emptying his sack down your chimney tonight. So you might as well polish off your pistol with some undrinkable meths and shoot the moonshine before bedding down with a Badnjak for a long Balkan love-in. You got it, it's time to come out as a tree-hugger.

Ziveli! And three of the finest hos to you all.

Oddly Enough...

2005-01-04T17:45:00.000Z

The most popular news is always the same. And you love it, slags.

Sex, Dogs and Chickens -- Weird Headlines of 2004

By Paul Majendie

LONDON (Reuters) - Humming sex toy shuts Australian airport. Taiwanese man tries to convert lions to Jesus, gets bitten.

Talking toilet orders German men to sit down. Chinese get busy signal on Beijing suicide line.

Judging by the bizarre headlines that greeted readers around the world, 2004 was a bumper year for the weird and wacky.

Canadian guide dog barred for only answering its master's commands in French. Japanese boy writes apology in blood for dozing in class.

The list is endless, living proof that truth is all too often stranger than fiction.

And, in a bizarre twist, it remains to be seen what emerged last night. Make mine a large one, barkeep! The rotters. Even the elitists are dumbing up as best they can:

"The stock market finished 2004 in the black. Susan Sontag died, thirty-six children in North Dakota were injured in a New Year's Eve sledding accident, and Liza Minnelli was hospitalized after falling out of bed."

Very hard to turn life into engaging television otherwise, you see. Doesn't play well, right? Wrong demographic. Like totally:

"I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, 'Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart.' Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! 'Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing.' Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags!"

You can't bottle chaos even if you can convince two billion fresh armpits to accept deodorant before they swipe your balance of power out from under you. But wherever you may wander, you'll be sure to find a journalist rustling up some inhuman disinterest.

Hot off the press...

2005-01-03T14:30:00.000Z

Of a Hell's Kitchen vinyl junkie from Belgrade. Hence the delayed refraction, innit:

----- Original Message -----

From: speedlink international
Subject: Re: anarchism
Date: December 17, 2004 14:26:35 GMT

hi.i know zamyatin,s book very well.it is masterpiece.try t. sturgen,s..more then human...it is o.k.obviusly,huxley,s..brave new world.. is actual again. there is publisher in u.s. called SEMIOTEXT wich has a lot good titles wich i truly recommend.i was trying to select few expressions regarding our exchange on anarchy:

1.ANARHIST as naive romantic...JAKOB BURCKHARD:,,in learning a man should be an amateur at as many points as possible,privatly at any rate,for the increase of his own knowledge and the enrichment of his vision...the amateur,because he loves things,may find points at which to dig deep in the course of his life.,,

2.ANARCHIST as pschydelic warrior...TIMOTHY LEARY on ,,global village,,,,...stop take look around,feelin up and going down,wakin up in the lost and found,gettin time to blow this town,pdq and lickety-split,i am turnin in my membership,solution be forthcome to wit,jack the jive and take the trip...CHORUS(many people) everything is FREE in global village,there ain,t no panic ain,t no privilege,ain,t no members ain,t no pillage,we are all goin to the global village....jump aboard let,s take a ride,the freedom train has just arrived,let,s kiss the poor flash the rich,shake the bait and ditch the switch,equal is as equal does,FOREVER NEVER EVER WAS,catch a clue and ride the buzz,bonafide drive-by love...CHORUS...the crooks and judges have all confessed,now even they are somehow blessed,rip van winkle do not you hide,wake on up and ride the ride.,,

3.ANARHIST AS religious spirit...JALLALUDIN RUMI...,,distance and nearness are attributes of bodies,the journeyings of spirits are after another sort.you journeyed from the embryo state to rationality without footsteps or stages or change of place,the journey of the soul involves not time and place.and my body learnt from soul its mode of journeying,now my body has renounced the bodily mode of jouneying,it journeys secretly and without form,though under a form.,,

4.ANARCHIST as punk rocker....JOE STRUMMER...,,punk rock is not something you grow out of.punk rock is like the mafia and once you are made,you are made.it is an attitude,and the essence of the attitude is,,GIVE US SOME TRUTH,,

5.ANARHIST as musician...JOHN CAGE...,,one does not make just any experiment but does what must be done.by this i mean one does not seek by his actions to arrive at money but does what must be done.by this i mean one does not seek by his actions to arrive at fame but does what must be done.one does notseek by his actions to provide pleasure to the senses but does what must be done.one does not seek by his actions to arrive at the establishing of a school but does what must be done.,,

6.ANARCHIST as beat rebel...W.BURROUGHS...,,the essence of white supremacy is this:they are people who want to keep things as they are,that their children,s children,s children might be a different color is something very alarming to them-in short they are commited to the maintenance of the static image.the attempt to maintain a static image,even if it is a good image,just won,t work.,,

best regards,
g.

Hmm. Quite the archaic revival. Sinister. On the left. Anyway, G., thanks for those quotes - reminded me of this Terence McKenna rap, which I think I played you once:

"In the twilight of human history, McKenna's prescription for salvation is just so crazy it might work." (Alex Grey, artist)

Why is the end of the world always nigh? The Economist has its suspicions.

"The apocalyptic narrative may have helped to start the motor of capitalism. A drama in which the end returns interminably to the beginning leaves little room for the sense of progress which, according to the 19th-century social theories of Max Weber, provides the religious licence for material self-improvement. Without the last days, in other words, the world might never have had 65-inch flat-screen televisions. For that matter, the whole American project has more than a touch of the apocalypse about it. The Pilgrim Fathers thought they had reached the New Israel. The 'manifest destiny' of America to spread its providential liberty and self-government throughout the North American continent (not to mention the Middle East) smacks of the millennium and the New Jerusalem."

So whaddya reckon, Terence? Timewave Zero in 2012 or the forward leap backwards into hyperspace? Every time a culture gets into trouble it casts itself back into the past looking for the last sane moment it ever knew, and all that:

"And the last sane moment we ever knew was on the plains of Africa 15,000 years ago rocked in the cradle of the Great Horned Mushroom Goddess before history, before standing armies, before slavery and property, before warfare and phonetic alphabets and monotheism, before, before, before..."

From: speedlink international
Date: December 24, 2004 15:42:23 GMT

hi.thanx for that stuff.i think you know for my plan to get the boat one day and i can sail far away from uncle sam,union jack and two-head serbian eagle with all their xmases,rituals,bulls,things,etc. i hope i will sail to the center of vortex.

all best,
g.

p.s. rumi: ,,late,by myself,in the boat of myself,no light and no land anywhere,cloudcover thick.i try to stay just above the surface,yet i,m already under and living within the ocean,,. ,,all day and night,music,a quiet,bright reedsong.if it fades,we fade.,,

Mad Chetnik Rave On! The Wicker Man goes Adbusters on Cyberdelia: a real horrorshow scarecrow of a Wurzel Gummidge, my Drug. I blame him and he blames me. Just say Yes. No. Whatever? It's up to you.

Court Circular

2005-01-03T11:20:00.000Z

A correspondence course in cognitive dissonance

My MP's latest excuse doesn't bear reprinting, but I did finally get to hear What's Cooking:

"Under Blair, Britain has ceased to be a sovereign state," proclaimed the late Hugo Young in one of his final columns for The Guardian, or at least that's how the subs summed it up. "At last we see the consequences of our country's abject thrall to the U.S."

So which way does Cookie crumble when it comes to coitus interruptus for the special relationship?

From: Robin Cook MP
Subject: Message from Robin Cook MP

Dear [Raoul]

Thank you for your email and I am sorry for the delay in replying to you. I am afraid I am overwhelmed with demands on my time, and I regret that I have fallen behind with my correspondence.

I strongly believe that Britain needs a change in direction in foreign policy and I am sure it can be achieved. Whether Tony Blair will be interested in such a change of direction, however, remains to be seen.

You mention a documentary that you are preparing. It is difficult to respond without more detail, but I am afraid that the pressures on me mean that I do have to decline most of such invitations. I know this may be disappointing, but I am very keen to make sure I keep enough time to focus on the pressure I have kept on the Government over Iraq and related foreign policy issues.

Thank you again for writing to me.

Yours sincerely

Robin Cook.

Unto which:

Subject: Re: Message from Robin Cook MP
Date: December 31, 2004 12:02:22 GMT

Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for your message. Apologies for my delayed response. Unfortunately, albeit predictably, both the BBC and Channel 4 declined the attached documentary synopsis, so there is at this stage nothing further that I can add, although I hope to explore these considerations through other channels.

I hope that regardless of the feasibility of the prime minister's impeachment you will speak out forcefully against his conduct in the run-up to the election. If he is to retain power for now, let it not be for want of the facts being spelled out.

Best wishes,

[Raoul]

But, sanctimonious little shit though I can be, I was no match for Ann Clwyd's Christmas Cheer. Bah! Humbug! The bitch's poor researcher must have been inundated, judging by the backlogificatory timelag. At least they're not paying for stamps, I suppose.

Beyond that I can't think of much else to say about this latest abomination. Faced with an accusation against the coalition forces, she seeks reassurance from an individual whose position is entirely dependent on those under suspicion. Indeed, he is often described as being "close to" both the Pentagon and the CIA. This makes her either a knave or a fool, as my learned friend puts it. No other options:

From: CLWYDA@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: The Lancet and the liberal conscience
Date: December 17, 2004 17:11:51 GMT

Dear [Raoul],

Thank you for your letter about the Lancet figures regarding the number of civilian deaths in Iraq. Please forgive the delay in my reply. I am receiving a great of correspondence in my office at the moment and it is difficult to reply to all of them.

I am, of course, deeply concerned about the alleged levels of civilian casualties and have repeatedly raised the issue with the appropriate authorities in both Britain and the United States.

I also raised this issue with Barham Salih, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, when he was in the UK recently. When I asked him about the statistic put forward by the Lancet of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, since April 2003, he told me that the figure was 'absolutely inaccurate and wrong'.

Data from the Iraqi Ministry for Health in the period 5 April 04 - 5 October 04 put total civilian deaths at 3,853. Dr. Salih suggested that while this latter figure represented a six month period only, it could be doubled to obtain the figures for a year, or tripled for the period since April 2003. This would still give a fair and representative figure for the number of civilian deaths since 2003. He added that the Ministry of Health data was collected at the height of terrorist outrages and that the overwhelming majority of deaths were a result of the terrorist onslaught.

In addition, you may be interested in the transcript of a Newsnight interview with Dr. Richard Horton Editor of the Lancet and Professor Michael Clarke from the Department of War Studies at Kings College, London. Professor Clarke makes some interesting points about the credibility of the statistical analysis used by the Lancet.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Ann Clwyd

VERY BAD SANTA

I'll spare everyone the six-week old transcript. Suffice it to say, if you had a happy holidays, I heartily recommend you detox by digesting The Curmudgeon's "A Christmas Carol II: Judgement Day":

"I spent a few minutes looking through the flat for any other supernatural manifestations that might have happened to wander in, but apart from a large and very natural spider in the airing cupboard nothing thrust itself on my attention. I went back to my armchair with three spirits of my own: whisky, gin and vodka. I'd bought the bottles a week ago, having saved all year. I switched on the television and prepared to sozzle myself insensible so as to notice the festivities as little as possible."

Sugar and spice and all things nice to make the medicine go down. Be orthodox: do it again this week.

And now for something completely different

2005-01-03T10:26:00.000Z

Another war brewing in the Balkans?

Yawn. I mean shit.

Like the Macedonian sideshow of 2001, it's all rather choreographed in Kosovo these days, what with the imperial power bestriding the region like a colossus and the old KLA still flexing its muscles, to say nothing of the meatheads in Belgrade. All written up with characteristic aplomb by the war whore press corps in the past, but eyeballs have since wandered. So, to get us back in the mood, here's a splash of cullah:

Armed ballerinas distract Macedonians from crisis

SKOPJE, May 9 (Reuters) - Looking for diversion in the Macedonian capital while government troops bombard ethnic Albanian rebels in the nearby hills? Try the combat ballerinas at the Skopje arms fair.

While politicians struggled to broker a deal on Wednesday to avert a new Balkan war, about 100 people paid out 50 denars (80 cents) to watch four petite young women pirouette with automatic weapons behind a razor-wire fence.

For four days only, ballerinas from the Macedonian National Theatre have swapped tutus and stage make-up for combat fatigues and camouflage cream.

"The aim is to advertise guns, explained Katarina Kiproska, the troupe's choreographer.

"They start with pistols and face paints, then move onto assault rifles and other pieces of military hardware."

Although the show, which runs three times daily, lasts less than 10 minutes, visitors appeared to find the lethal arsenal on display around the exhibition hall equally diverting.

"Most of the people here have come to look, not to buy," said marketing executive Dobre Smileski of Macedonian defence firm Eurokompozit, from behind a case of anti-tank rockets.

The exhibitors hoped to turn window-shoppers into clients.

"We can show you our pyrotechnic products if you like, or maybe our bombs, guns and protective gear," offered Lidia Milicevic from the Macedonian firm Suvenir.

So what drives a Skopje resident to come and check out the latest rocket-propelled grenade launchers, armour-piercing bullets and night-sight goggles while Macedonia's fragile ethnic mix risks collapsing into a civil war?

"We just want to see what's new," said Stefan Jakimovski, who was visiting the fair with a group of friends. "I'm a hunter. I'm not impressed by this kind of stuff."

(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

In the words of the International Crisis Group, a gang of fixers, policy wonks and spooks who serve up grist for Western meddling (sorry, good-doing), Kosovo is now a "conflict risk alert":

"Alliance for the Future of Kosovo leader Ramush Haradinaj appointed prime minister 7 December under cloud of possible ICTY war crimes indictment. Belgrade furious, international community uneasy with appointment, though Haradinaj's government made confident, popular start. Indictment would likely spark dangerous political crisis, and insurgency from Haradinaj's native west Kosovo. Further economic responsibilities to be transferred to Kosovo institutions, as local media increasingly focused on rising poverty, and Kosovo Electricity Corporation (KEK) cut power to many (mostly Albanian) bill-defaulting villages. Serbian government refused to deal with Haradinaj or engage with decentralisation on UNMIK's terms. Belgrade officials and media displayed agenda of provocation: made troop redeployments towards Albanian-inhabited areas of southern Serbia abutting Kosovo; wrongly portrayed KEK power cuts to non-bill-paying Serb villages as ethnic discrimination; backed threats to repeat highway-blocking protests that had attracted Albanian violence in March."

Liberal opinion is aghast. Balkan reality tends to have that effect.

We'll go to war over Kosovo, says Radical leader | 13:29 December 31 | Beta

BELGRADE -- Friday - The deputy leader of Vojislav Seselj's Radical Party of Serbia said today that Serbia will go to war over Kosovo.

Asked whether he expected negotiations on the province's final status to begin in 2005, Tomislav Nikolic said that he thinks that Serbia will go to war to defend Kosovo.

Nikolic said that he believes the beginning of the year will be extremely difficult and the country will be put to great tests, because of which a broad consensus of all who live in Serbia is needed.

Radical leader Seselj is in prison in The Hague awaiting trial on war crime charges.

Nutter. So what's the word on the street? This just in from the mafia's best beloved Belgrade soundsystem:

"Serbia right now is perfect exemple of third rate capitalism (pseudo-fascist) country. It is shame and disgrace for world, except world is already being raped from all sides and can not see even what tomorrow will bring."

Happy New Year!

Corporate media bukkake

2005-01-03T09:57:00.000Z

From Baron Paul Julius Reuter (R.I.P.)

Still, what does one expect from a modern news agency of record?

"Reuters is a global information company providing indispensable information tailored for professionals in the financial services, media and corporate markets."

Know. Now. You better believe it:

PluggedIn: Beyond the iPod, Accessories Are Hot Items

By Reed Stevenson

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Got an iPod during the holidays?

Chances are, you're already shopping for the perfect case or eyeing a new kit to plug your portable digital music player into a car stereo system, while browsing the plethora of other accessories available for Apple Computer Inc.'s (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) popular product.

"The Apple iPod transcends just being a piece of technology," said Jeremy Horowitz, senior editor of iPodlounge.com, which he described as the largest source of information on the iPod and related hardware and software.

Industry experts claim that the typical user spends about 20 percent on top of the price of the iPod to dress it up in an attractive case or make it more versatile by attaching speakers or docking it to an automobile stereo system.

With iPods selling for anywhere from $250 to $600, depending on the model, that translates into a hot business opportunity for many manufacturers looking to tap into the enthusiasm of the iPod user market.

"The iPod market is quality-centric and less price sensitive," said Brian Van Harlingen, senior technology manager at Belkin Corp., known as the maker of various accessories that match the white color and design curves of the iPod.

So what's news? We report, you decide. Assuming you're not combing the cable for freeview snatches and other exotica instead. Worry not, it's mucky as fuck in the newsroom.

The CCC believes that the mainstream news media may have blanked coverage of the EarPod because of its dynamic market transference potential. But, according to Ms Highpocket, the problems go still deeper.

"It's a basic problem with the mainstream media," she said. "They get to decide what to leave in and what to take out. Often what gets left in is the sensational stuff like wars, disasters and asylum seeker crime levels, which means that the kind of thing people can actually do something about - authentic ways in which individual consumer actions can actually promote a considerable degree of economic rectification - tends to get left by the wayside."

Shop til we drop! Or else. It is sweet and right to die for one's country, what?

Conspiracy theorists...

2004-12-02T01:28:00.000Z

theorise about conspiracies.

Q.E.D.

Some of these conspiracies are rather transparent:

"NEW YORK - You've heard this song before. There's this country, see, and they hate America. They'd nuke us if they had the chance, you bet they would. Damn Muslim religious fanatics! Guess what? They have weapons of mass destruction! Either that or their scientists are about to develop them. Whatever--we can't let that happen. We've gotta hit them before they hit us! What's that? Of course we're sure! Our intelligence says so. Huh? No. We can't show you the proof. We'll say this much...a little bird told us. A little exile bird that wants to run the country after we overthrow the current regime. They wouldn't lie, and neither would we. And while we're at it, can we borrow your son for the next few years?

"Colin Powell, disgraced by his 2003 fictional anthrax speech at the U.N., is closing his run as Bush's poodle-in-chief with a bravura repeat performance. His last big PR project: conning us into war against Iran."

Damn neocons. What happened to the disarmament that was supposed to counter the non-proliferation treaty? Time to weaponise space I guess, for which we'll need some public relations. Step up the lapdog rottweilers in the corporate media:

"They don't have neocons in Britain: over there, they're called Blairites, or New Labourites. But it's essentially the same thing: they love the State, they love themselves, and, most of all, they love war – in the name of idealism, you understand, which, in Blairite circles, amounts to what passes these days for "humanitarian" interventionism. In any case, I suppose it was inevitable that the British wing of the species would one day deign to notice Antiwar.com's existence – and in the same vehemently uncomplimentary vein as their American cousins – but David Aaronovitch, writing in the Guardian, doesn't even come close to matching the virulence of our very own Davids – Frum, Horowitz, take your pick. I expected rather more from the author of a book entitled Arson, Rape, and Bloody Murder..."

You knows it makes sense:

"Dear supporter,

"We have done what they said was impossible; a motion of impeachment is now on the agenda of the House of Commons for the first time since the days of Napoleon and the Battle of Trafalgar - you can find it under the future business section though for procedural reasons only the top six supporters are listed."

Feeling apathetic? So's your M.P.

"What now? We need more MPs to support it and a full debate in the Commons.

"Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tory MPs can find reasons not to support impeachment - "let's wait for the election and a reduced labour majority or for something worse to go wrong in Iraq that will bring Blair down", or "we can't support it because of the Tories", and so on and so on.

"But this is not about political parties, it is about democracy. It is about fighting for the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that ministers cannot deceive parliament and the public and get away with it. Look at the MPs who support the impeachment motion from former Tory ministers and Boris Johnson to the left-wing Adam Price - they have all managed to sink their differences and place democracy above party.

"It is now time for Labour MPs to join the impeachment campaign. Privately many have indicated that when the time is right they will join. Many have already written to Kofi Annan accusing the government of war crimes. Why can they support that idea of a trial and not support charging the Prime Minister in the court of parliament? Some of the Labour MPs even suggest that it should be left to the grieving relatives of the British dead in Iraq to take Blair to court. We believe they must take responsibility themselves.

"We hope and expect that the power of impeachment will continue to exert its force, that in the early New Year there will be a debate and a vote in the Commons and that we will win it. Let Labour MPs shuffle through the lobbies in favour of Blair's deceit and explain their actions to their constituents.

"We may not win but the campaigns for the vote, free speech, racial equality might have been lost. In the end it comes down to how much we care for democracy and freedom.

"Yours,

"impeachBlair.org"

Get to those phones. Or better still, get a move on.

Power to the people

2004-11-27T15:32:00.000Z

Right on?

Before getting too misty-eyed about the Orange Revolution® in Kiev, check out the shades of grey, to say nothing of the silence of the hams three weeks ago:

"Whether it is Albania in 1997, Serbia in 2000, Georgia last November or Ukraine now, our media regularly peddle the same fairy tale about how youthful demonstrators manage to bring down an authoritarian regime, simply by attending a rock concert in a central square. Two million anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a few tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be "the people", while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression."

Hmm. Possibly not the wisest choice of words, given that most Slavic languages refer to the police stormtroopers as "security forces", rather than the more apposite "paramilitary Robocops".

But still, the bias is quite absurd, so it's refreshing to read a mainstream debunking in real time. Eager perhaps to demonstrate its preferences for European imperialism over the American hegemony it spawned, The Guardian has been pumping out this sort of commentary all week:

"Intervening in foreign elections, under the guise of an impartial interest in helping civil society, has become the run-up to the postmodern coup d'etat, the CIA-sponsored third world uprising of cold war days adapted to post-Soviet conditions. Instruments of democracy are used selectively to topple unpopular dictators, once a successor candidate or regime has been groomed."

Quite. And like so much else about the Neworldisorder of pre-emptive defence, it was all cooked up in a pact with the devil's advocate at the crossroads of civilisation in the Balkans. Now "he's finished", it's time to roll out phase three of Operation Squeeze The Big Man's Balls. The Great Game waits for no man, what with the oil running out and China guzzling away. Tomorrow Moldova, then onward toward Central Asia, marching as to war.

"They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 - the two words "gotov je", meaning "he's finished", a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing."

Gutrot's erstwhile employer provided the definitive account of what the U.S. wanted us to glean from its extensive interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state, although it is worth noting that the Otpor oligarchs were none too chuffed with their portrayal in The New York Times, for a change:

"'We hope the new generation of leaders will come from Otpor's ranks,' says [Bill] Montgomery, the Budapest-based American diplomat, who is set to move to Belgrade as ambassador when diplomatic relations are restored. 'That would be a fair return on America's investment in the movement.'"

Unfortunately, these things take time and the other prongs of Uncle Sam's pitchfork were more blunt. Masterminding the construction of an opposition from abroad was one thing - levering Zoran Djindjic into power required some dirty deals with Mr. Milosevic's war-criminal cronies, as the author of the Death Of A Nation reminisced:

"Zoran and his reformers were able to remove Mr. Milosevic, and later to send him to be tried, because the secret service units had become disillusioned with the Serbian strongman. But even with him gone they remained unreformed and untouchable."

A textbook double bind: when America's new man was told to choose between the rival toughs upon whom he depended, he wound up dead. So much for nation-building and the rubber-stamp for giving Kosovo to the Albanians; you can't make a silk omelette out of a pig's ear without breaking the eggs that save your bacon.

Another jolly rogering straight from the anarchist's cockbook, eh? So where did all this revolting lark leave the advent of democracy in Serbia? Going nowhere fast.

Djindjic retained the Milosevic-era constitution to hang onto power, gridlocking government for three years while his coalition fell apart. When gutrot asked Ambassador Montgomery - the imperial representative and close family friend of the man he helped install - how long he planned to support this affront to all he claimed to stand for, your correspondent was accused of bias and escorted from the Embassy.

The Otpor people, or at least the slimy lawyers who ran the show, now have a shiny new office in Belgrade, but have otherwise melted into obscurity at home; their catchy slogans dried up with the promises of Djindjic's "democratic" dictatorship. Tribalism gnawed at its fraying edges, turning people off politics so intensely that the reformist door was slammed in their faces in 2002. Another Serbian shot in the foot; or perhaps across the bows of American preferences. The tightrope strangles hope like cheesewire.

Meanwhile the footsoldiers in the baton line on October 5, 2000 have reverted to dealing with the harsh realities: they still inhabit an impoverished pariah state, American aid has been cut off and the resistance leaders have abandoned everything they thought they were fighting for. Bummer.

Let freedom reign, bleat the propagandists. Where precisely and for whom? Beware the seductions of mincing real people in the matrix of Western geostrategic priorities. Western benevolence? Dream on: true liberty does not flow from subservience, however unattainable the ideal.

What matters to the U.S. is not democracy, but that a favoured individual remains in power, regardless of whether he has any intention, or capability, of delivering what U.S. rhetoric purports to desire to see. Whether or not Djindjic was "the least worst option" in Serbia, he was widely reviled until he was shot. If anything, the U.S. has consistently strengthened the forces it claims to despise; Britain's representatives in Belgrade openly admit as much, although not to camera, of course.

But we never learn about that at school, because it's all about Nazis in the British curriculum.

Lest we forget, we're dashing fine chaps after all: only following orders to save civilisation from the barbarians, what? Stick that in your toilet and deface it.

Even more hype...

2004-11-25T22:27:00.000Z

From those miserable bastards at Media Lies

An' she wuz only tryna help, you get, straight up, my arse. Ouch:

"Dear Ann, thank you for your reply. Does this mean I can look forward to your public call for the investigation of war crimes committed by the Coalition of the Illegal in Falluja..."

Like we said last time, the mills of God grind slow, but they do grind on.

Look! Famous people!

2004-11-25T01:22:00.000Z

The BBC reveals its news-editing priorities in an age of self-referential pseudo-idolatory with a sardonic leer:

"Author Frederick Forsyth and actor Corin Redgrave joined MPs to call for Tony Blair's impeachment over Iraq. Twenty-three MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for the prime minister to be thrown from office."

Really? Can't say I've heard too much about it to be honest. The outcome has already been discounted by the media market, you see, as David Traynier reminded The Guardian with an inimitable chivvy:

"The impeachment motion does not have the support of either of the main so-called ‘opposition’ parties and, despite the courage of its proponents, is likely to fail. This is expected but no less shameful for it.

"The motivation for this lack of support is clear. Both main parties realize that the Iraq invasion, despite their own limp to non-existent opposition to it, is their best weapon against the hollow New Labour hegemony. The removal of Blair would create the illusion of a ‘fresh start’ for Labour; much as Thatcher’s ouster did for the Tories. For the ‘opposition’ such a fresh start would be a disaster and so impeachment cannot be allowed. Hence, duty to Party far outweighs duty to the people and cowardice reigns."

Speak up before free speech just isn't free, even in cyberspace:

"We apologise if you have experienced difficulties visiting the www.ImpeachBlair.org website. It was removed yesterday without warning by the hosting company.

"We have now re-hosted the site under the domain www.ImpeachBlair.net and are working to get contol of our original .org domain. You can now visit the site by going to www.ImpeachBlair.net.

"Although out mailing list is almost intact, our database of petition signatories was deleted along with the site, so will you please sign our online petition again by going to www.ImpeachBlair.net/form.shtml.

"Kind regards,

"ImpeachBlair.org (www.ImpeachBlair.net)"

Paranoia will destroy ya? Think about it before the media tells you with 2020 hindsight why you got it wrong:

"At least 12 potential rioters were killed in New York today when the Enhanced National Guard fired on a demonstration of students demanding what they called 'the return of constitutional rule'. No Britons or famous people were hurt."

Use it or lose it; it's a power play.

Troops Out (Glasgow) calls for Balanced Coverage of the War in Iraq
Picket the BBC!

Queen Margaret Drive, Monday 29 November, 12.30 pm

"The BBC is not reporting the humanitarian disaster being inflicted on Falluja.

"Falluja is being flattened by 500lb bombs. BBC reports present Falluja as a military target and ignore hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties.

"The BBC is ignoring war crimes committed by the US military in Falluja.

"The US military deliberately cut off water and electricity in Falluja, but the BBC reports this as something that just happened.

"Where is the shocked outrage about the bombing of hospitals, the denying of access to aid workers and the use of force to prevent civilians leaving war zones?

"These are all war crimes, but you wouldn’t know this from the BBC."

Surely you're not suggesting some kind of conspiracy to foghorn propaganda? Come off it: what difference would it make? The bottom line is the bottom line.

A Call For Light

2004-11-22T22:51:00.000Z

Vigil outside the BBC

Where?
Bush House, Aldwych, London

When?
Thursday, 2nd December, between 5:30pm and 7:00pm

What?
The first barrage of modern warfare is not heard on the battlefield. Instead, it thunders forth from our TV screens and leaves trails of fiery words across the printed page.

"It is often said that ‘the first casualty of war is truth’, but we rarely reflect on the bloody reality of these words. During war, more than at any other time, language is twisted, stretched, and degraded. 'Precision airstrikes', 'collateral damage', and 'friendly fire': all phrases thrown over a tragedy like a blanket over a corpse; to blur uncomfortably sharp edges and make tolerable the ugly truth beneath."

Wise up, rise up and light the world of lies up.

"Who will speak for dead Iraqis when our media will not? Denied their voice, our dead brothers and sisters are 'unpeople': like our own fallen soldiers, just more lives lost to the fires of a 'war' that the UN Secretary-General condemns as 'illegal'. Almost as lost are the voices who oppose this bloody crime: 57%, according to a recent survey in the UK."

Be there or despair.

In other news...

2004-11-19T17:06:00.000Z

Buried on page 12 of The Guardian is the revelation that Clare Short's excuse for inaction has been obliterated:

Commons motion to impeach Blair gets go-ahead

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday November 19, 2004
The Guardian

The parliamentary motion to impeach Tony Blair for "gross misconduct" over the war against Iraq will be published next Wednesday, the day after the Queen's speech.

It will be the first to be tabled in 198 years, since Lord Melville, a close friend of the then prime minister, William Pitt the younger, faced impeachment for misusing public money in running the Admiralty.

Senior parliamentary officials, including legal advisers to the Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, on Wednesday night approved the wording of the text as meeting parliamentary rules, allowing the motion to be tabled on the first day of the new session. The Tory chief whip, David Maclean, has paged every Tory frontbench MP telling them not to sign it.

The Liberal Democrats are divided, with Jenny Tonge, the MP for Richmond, among those supporting the idea and Sir Menzies Campbell, the party's foreign affairs spokesman, strongly opposing it. No Labour MP is expected to sign the motion for fear of losing the party whip for bringing the leader into disrepute.

For those of us Short on political sophistication, Michael White had a more prominent reminder of the nuance we lack:

From student fees to civil partnerships the parliamentary year, which ended yesterday, has not been easy for the prime minister.

The poor chap; how could we possibly be so beastly when the man who would be King has already singed his beard?

STOP PRESS: Obscurantism in Westminster

Posted by eel pie on November 19, 2004, 9:10 pm

"Isn't it strange that the UK intelligensia know more about, say, buying a cheap flight or getting a pregnancy terminated than passing the laws that govern them?

"Stranger that court-room legalese is being reformed, but legislative mumbo-jumbo remains stubbornly obscure.

"Getting the popular will expressed in legislation is by far the most obscure process existing today, far exceeding in complexity, say brain surgery or rocket science.

"Debating societies in school, where they exist, teach little about the business side of parliamentary process. Elsewhere it is impossible to learn about it, or even to gain access to a simple explanation of how it works.

"Getting a Proposition passed in California is so simple compared that it makes you wonder why UK electors do not demand similar rights. But how would they express such demands? These days, they must be the among the most disempowered people on earth.

"Down the years, the list of legislation passed reads almost exactly like the headlines of the TV/tabloids, so we can see who is calling the shots."

Democratising Falluja

2004-11-14T13:53:00.000Z

With extreme prejudice

Through his rear-view mirror, The Curmudgeon exposes the extent of our compassion fatigue.

As news of the latest human tragedy in the region went out, British commanders were rallying their units. "We can't afford to let this kind of thing go on without retaliating," said Lieutenant-Colonel Vernon Wimsey. "It's painful to have to do it, but we're just going to have to go through the city again and democratise until these incidents stop. Democratise with extreme prejudice," he said.

The Falluja Forum appeals for direct action:

"Simple information needs to reach the public quickly and directly."

Posted by Darren on November 11, 2004, 9:22 pm, in reply to "Forum on Falluja - help please"

"Of course, a site of resources is useful from an activism point of view (such the national stop war). But, I think everyone really needs to think, and debate, the best ways of using activism... and these are the exactly the kinds of debate which there seems to be a lack."

Open up and spread the word.

IRAQ QUIZ

Posted by walter on November 10, 2004, 4:57 pm, in reply to "Falluja call to arms, or should that be legs"

What about something like this to give to people going to work? The idea is they might pull it out over coffee or work-breaks (obviously, questions etc could be better):

1) In September, 2700 attacks were aimed at coalition forces or collaborators. How many were claimed by al-Zarqawi

a) 6 b) 30 c) 200 d) 1000

2) During the invasion in March 2003, which station was most likely to pass on the claims of the government or military without question

a) BBC b) ITV c) CH4 d) Sky

3) Control of the Iraqi media lies with

a) the Iraqi people b) the interim Iraqi govt c) Mossad d) Pentagon appointees

4) What proportion of the of the $23bn reconstruction money allocated by the US Congress for the reconstruction of Iraq was spent by June 2004?

a) 0% b) 15% c) 40% d) 70%

5) Bremer’s package of “economic reforms”, described by the Economist as “a capitalist’s -------”,

a) nightmare b) option c) duty d) dream

6) Under Bremers orders, the proportion of Iraqis that must be employed by foreign companies operating in Iraq must be at least

a) 0% b) 25% c) 50% d) 75%

7) The only building(s) that U.S. soldiers had orders to guard against looting was

a) nuclear power station b) WMD factories c) hospitals d) oil ministry

8) The US is committed to building 14

a) hospitals b) schools c) prisons d) US military bases

[add scoring system]

NOW ADD UP YOUR SCORE

<20 US soldier
20-40 Want to buy some time shares ?
40-60 Temporary candidate human being, read more alternative news sites like ....
60-80 Tell the others in the office where they’re going wrong
80+ Anorak - get out more

Why don't you... switch off your webTV set and do something less more-ish instead?

UPDATE 1-Pre-election opportunity to make Bliar unelectable

George Bush is to visit Britain in February, thrusting his controversial relationship with Tony Blair into the spotlight in the run-up to next year's general election.

A high-stakes gamble: still double or quits for Her Majesty's Secret Service; shaken, but not stirred.

Flogging My Little Pony

2004-11-14T13:07:00.000Z

An exchange with my MP about Blair and Iraq

Posted by Raoul Djukanovic on November 13, 2004, 2:40 pm

Subject: Re: Blair
Date: November 13, 2004 13:35:54 GMT
To: corstonj@parliament.uk

Dear Ms Corston,

Thank you for your letter of 12 November 2004 regarding my inquiry as to what you are doing to hold Tony Blair to account.

As you note, four separate public inquiries have exonerated the Prime Minister, at considerable expense to the taxpayer. Since the case for him to answer was compiled using material presented to these inquiries, I wonder where it is precisely that you disagree with the argument and evidence presented by Dan Plesch and Glen Rangwala’s impeachment report.

You state: “I first met Dan Plesch nearly thirty years ago and have a lot of respect for him, but it is possible to hold a contrary view and not be wrong.”

Can I infer, then, that Mr Plesch is in fact right in what he writes, in your opinion? Your dismissal of the notion that the Prime Minister lied repeatedly makes no reference to the specific charges laid out in Mr Plesch’s report.

I was also confused by your reference to UNSC Resolution 1441 as proof that “the rest of the world agreed” with Bush and Blair, while “even Syria was convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction”. Britain’s own intelligence services were at pains to stress how little we knew about Iraqi weapons programmes after the withdrawal of weapons inspectors in 1998 as a prelude to intensified bombing.

Moreover, the failure to secure a supplementary Security Council resolution authorising war refutes your assertion that there was agreement on this topic; it was precisely because there was none that Britain bugged other national delegations at the U.N. to establish how to proceed with the push for war. This caused considerable consternation at the time, leading to the resignation of one of the Foreign Office advisers charged with presenting an argument for the legality of the invasion in the absence of the mandatory Security Council mandate.

I repeat my original question: upon reflection, do you concede that the Prime Minister misled both Parliament and the public in his presentation of the case for war? If so, should he not be forced, as were Peter Mandelson and Beverley Hughes, to resign? Considering the civilian death toll in Iraq, I fail to see how his offence, although technically identical, is of a lesser order of magnitude.

Thank you for your time; I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

[Djukanovic, Raoul]

Yes, I know she's no Red Ken Bed Head, but don't the Blair's Babes got soul?

These things take time; change will leave us behind.

129 INT -- GUARD DESK/WARDEN'S OUTER OFFICE -- DAY (1955) 129

Dozens of parcel boxes litter the floor. WILEY, the duty
guard, picks through them. Hadley enters, trailed by Andy.

ANDY
What is all this?

HADLEY
You tell me, fuck-stick! They're
addressed to you, every damn one!

Wiley thrusts an envelope at Andy. Andy just stares at it.

WILEY
Well, take it.

Andy takes the envelope, pulls out a letter, reads:

ANDY
Dear Mr. Dufresne. In response to
your repeated inquiries, the State
Senate has allocated the enclosed
funds for your library project... "
(stunned, examines check)
This is two hundred dollars.

Wiley grins. Hadley glares at him. The grin vanishes.

ANDY
In addition, the Library District
has generously responded with a
charitable donation of used books
and sundries. We trust this will
fill your needs. We now consider
the matter closed. Please stop
sending us letters. Yours truly,
the State Comptroller's Office.

Andy gazes around at the boxes. The riches of the world lay at
his feet. His eyes mist with emotion at the sight.

Easy, brethren. We don't need no fake redemption; we don't need no thought control. All in all, you's just another brick in the wall.

Media Lies

2004-11-13T20:11:00.000Z

A shameless plug

The pro-war Left have made a hobby out of hysterical neo-McCarthyite attacks on the rest of the Left. They have so far been able to do so because they have rarely been scrutinised. This is unfortunate because the arguments of the left imperialists dissolve into thin air upon inspection. This website will make a hobby of proving that point. Welcome to Media Lies:

The Revenge of the News Tiger
Another day at the office

"The FT's John Lloyd, like Martin Kettle of The Guardian, thinks journalists have gone too far.

So let's unsheath our swords of truth and follow the fearless Mr. Lloyd through the square window of the media elite and into the lap of leadership, where style trumps substance whenever possible. All the better to deceive you with, my dears..."

You knows it.

My Trade

2004-11-13T15:08:00.000Z

Confessions of a war pimp

Question everything in the media, says Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor and self-appointed authority on the benevolent motivations of his family friend, the Prime Minister.

Alright then:

Subject: the myth of sisyphus
Date: November 13, 2004 11:09:47 GMT
To: andrew.marr@bbc.co.uk

Dear Mr. Marr,

I was rather taken aback by your description of the Bush-Blair mood music ("More than the usual summit rhetoric?", BBC Online, November 13). Although I appreciate that you have to find something to say about the vacuous verbiage, I wonder if you could spare a moment to decipher these lines for me:

"It is a strange marriage between the old internationalist instincts of part of the liberal left and the so-called neo-conservatives of George Bush's America. This is, quite clearly, a restless, hugely ambitious and no doubt at times perilous world view. But listening to the self-certain words and observing the body language it was quite clear - both men mean this."

Why do you regard their rhetoric as being indicative of their actions? What leads you to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to "spread democracy", as you put it? Would anything shake your faith in the benevolent intent of Tony Blair? Perhaps you might also enlighten me as to what his purported influence on George Bush has delivered in practical terms.

Yours sincerely,

[Gurgling Ulcer, The]

Isn't journalism fun?

"Full of lying, cheating, drunken, cocaine-sniffing, unethical people. It's a wonderful profession."

-- Piers Morgan, Daily Mirror (R.I.P.)

The myth of Sisyphus

2004-11-12T23:08:00.000Z

On the psychotracist's couch with gutrot, session IV

Once upon a time there was a very special little boy who grew up to fulfil his Mission as a mucky Murcan pup.

Semper fidelis: a man’s best friend, especially in a special relationship.

As time passed, little boy ~~blue~~ purple began to feel very sorry for himself. Leering at the webTV cameras wasn’t working like it used to. Nobody understood that he carried the weight of the world upon his shoulders and his silver tongue was forking with venom.

Not one of those wicked critics would put themselves in his place. Such horrid things they said, but really, you know, you simply can’t make tough choices when events are such a burden.

"Look, it depends whether you want to deal with this at the level of humour and satire or whether you want to try and make sense of what are difficult issues." (Anthony Bliar, Queer Customer, Newsnight, 6 February, 2003)

So, there were tears and empathy for the American loser at the Vicarage of St Albion before getting back to business with the chump chompin' at the Chimp act. But quisling Bliar (a.k.a. Pigling Bland, a.k.a. Schquealer) still has the chattering classes sniping at his heels.

"Members of Blair's Labour party, many of whom remain bitter about his decision to follow Washington to war in Iraq, said that boil could have been lanced if Bush had been ousted.

"He has always been seen as the number one bad guy," one Labour parliamentarian said."

Now there's no use wallowing in our own muck, now is there Schquealer? We must get on with Goddum like a good little gobblin' gurgler, and keep our Mouth of Sauron bleating.

"Yesterday Mr Blair defended as "part of the job" efforts to stay on good terms with whoever is US president. "The relationship between Britain and the US is fantastically important. It is a huge strength of this country to have that relationship and if we are confronting this threat of terrorism in the world, it is important we confront it together," he said on GMTV.

- Welcome to Washington, PryMusta Blur.

- Dubya? Dick? You two are truly scrumptious and I shan't forget this lovely day. My heart beats so unruly, I also love you truly. Honest truly, I do. Now, about the Middle East...

- Hey, when I want your advice I’ll call you. My people been tellin’ me it was you guys who fucked up Iraq in the first place, back around the same time you fucked up the rest of Middle Earth. Hell, you even had that Churchill telling you how to clear that shit up back when you could have gassed 'em and got away with it.

- Hey, now that's really a bit rich. Another nice mess you got ME into, pardner.

Like all these truly icky things we have to do in the Great War For Civilisation that doesn't need to be fought, at least not disproportionately, or maybe... er, no, er... stiff upper lip... now look, er, oh I don't know, it's all really quite beyond our control isn't it my precious, yes. We knows it. So we pays the Blood Price in dead Iraqis and a few gallant martyrs for Democracy.

SCHQUEALER
But what about the women and children?

GODDUM
They're thieves! They're thieves!
They're filthy little thieves!
They stole it from us, our
precious. Curse them!
We hates them! It's ours it is,
and we wants it, we needs it.
Must have the precious power.
They stole it from us. Sneaky
little bastards. Wicked, tricksy,
false!

SCHQUEALER
No! Not master.

GODDUM
Yes precious, everyone. First
they cheat you, hurt you, LIE.

SCHQUEALER
Master's my friend!

GODDUM
You don't have any friends,
Schquealer. Nobody likes you!

SCHQUEALER
I'm not listening, I'm not
listening.

GODDUM
You're a liar and a thief.

SCHQUEALER
No!

GODDUM
Murderer!

SCHQUEALER
(sobbing)
Go away!

GODDUM
Go away?

SCHQUEALER
I hate you, I hate you!

GODDUM
Where would you be without me?
Goddum! Goddum saved us! It was me!
Dubya Money in God's Casino!

So who's the pig in the poke? Why? Tis we, of course. We, the people; the ones in whose name this whole democratisation maximalisation initiativity barnstorming benefit gig is conducted.

"The pigs impose more and more controls while reserving privileges for themselves, all of which is justified by the pig Squealer, effectively the farm's propaganda minister. With a pack of vicious dogs as enforcers, Napoleon conducts show trials and executions, grants himself glorious titles, and progressively annuls all the principles of Animalism."

Send in the shrinks! More people take antidepressants than vote for Pop Idol. Let's hear it from Mr. Britain on the Couch:

"There might be a feeling that a dirty bomb exploding in London is more likely to happen with the policies pursued by a Bush government. People may be taken back to the generalised sense of dread that was widespread before 1988 and the end of the cold war. This complete nutter in the White House and Blair with the wild look in his eyes ... "

So there he was, our little engine that couldn't, dear leader of the dearly departed ruler of the waves, pigging out on the scraps from the Captain's Table.

"Engage to persuade. Tony Blair arrives in Washington ... aiming to do just that. Continuing what I have called the Jeeves school of diplomacy, he will be unswervingly loyal in public, while privately urging moderation, multilateralism and other good things on the gentleman in the White House."

Check the technique:

"What we will do is anything that is necessary to make this strategy work," said Blair.

Hmm. Of course, Boss Hogg wouldn't actually commit to anything like negotiations, never mind asking Israel to surrender its colonies, so it's difficult to imagine a peace without land, unless the plan is to impose a watered-down version of the same old story on whoever can be cajoled into signing up. But rest assured that our caring, sharing PM registered his misgivings most strongly with the President's staff.

"The secretary this year is a Mrs Temperance G Punt, who ranks two grades above the secretary to whom the Prime Minister handed his concerns during his visits last year and the year before. Mrs Punt's line manager is Grover Batts, who reports personally to the Commander-in-Chief's personal secretary at least twice a month. The Prime Minister will therefore be looking on this visit as an important opportunity to communicate British concerns forthrightly to the US leader."

Meanwhile, the destruction of Falluja to save it continues, with shades of Srebrenica in the rounding up of adult males who try to flee. Get back into the square circle of death, you bounders!

And there's more sabre-rattling ahead, to say nothing of more dead unpeople from Turr-loving nations, according to the man with the plan.

"The architects of Bush's foreign policy have a new 'checklist' of tasks for the Bush second term. It includes taking on not only the 'axis of evil,' but also 'Old Europe' and China."

The State Department and the C.I.A. have had it with this shit; it stops them getting on quietly with covert operations. Not-very-anonymous people are washing their hands of it all but they can never get clean.

"Secretary of State Colin Powell is not staying for a second Bush term. When he goes the last bulwark against complete neoconservative control of U.S. foreign policy goes with him. The implications are enormous, yet the American electorate appears to be blinded by the Bush campaign's deliberate manipulations of 9/11." (Editor's note: For bulwark read figleaf)

Holy war! Freedom reigns supreme. According to the International Herald Tribune's Lebanese insert, but of course not the cuckoo's nest, "we" are now officially Worse Than Saddam in the eyes of Arabs. Power corrupts and absolute hyperpower corrogates the brain. It's a dog's life being a lapgod.

But fear not, the spin doctors of existential angst are on the case:

"There is only one truly serious question about the morality of the war, and that is the question posed more than fifty years ago by French Nobel laureate Albert Camus, looking back on two world wars that had slaughtered more than 70 million people: When do we have the right to kill our fellow human beings or let them be killed?"

Never mind what Goddum says; if he told you to jump off a cliff would you do it? The myth of Sisyphus strikes again.

"The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labour. If one believes Homer, Sisyphus was the wisest and most prudent of mortals. According to another tradition, however, he was disposed to practice the profession of highwayman. I see no contradiction in this."

So let's withdraw; coitus interruptus for the special relationship with Iraqi civilians, and even with Washington. Ah, but that would be the end of the road for Satanistan's little helper. Still, change is inevitable; it will come to pass, but when?

"The special relationship has become a national delusion," writes former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned over the decision to invade Mesopotamia. "Iraq could be the blunder that turns us from loyal chorus to candid friend"

As befits the architect of an ethical policy of bombing, that cornerstone of the oxymoronic doctrine of humanitarian war, that's the way that Cookie rumbles: flying kites while might is right.

"The political values and global priorities of the US and Europe are diverging rather than converging. Clinging to an outdated special relationship is to stay in denial of that uncomfortable truth."

Yes, yes! But how to throw off the habits of a lifetime? As usual, not a word about removing the Bliar in the ointment, although the bishops are still most upset by their Vicar's machinations of language, and they're professional figleafs too. Fortunately, Camus has words of wisdom for us all: forget the pilgrim's progress up the greasy pole with a dead weight. Troops out, impeach Blair and seize the initiative. Then we can talk.

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

Perhaps. Personally, I prefer to imagine him cracking rocks in the stocks in Hyde Park. Who wants to beat a millionaire? I'm a celebrity, it's a knockout!

Pictures of Matchstick Men

2004-11-10T14:34:00.001Z

News is what self-styled important people say and do and what styled self-important people say about it all.

But the business of producing factoids is not the same as making news, which is what happens when Significant Others do Something Notable enough for their previous feats to be summarised to remind us why we take their word on how to live and tell everyone all about it even if lots of ordinary folks disagree strongly.

NEWSMAKER - Ashcroft was architect of U.S. anti-terror policy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who resigned on Tuesday, was the Bush administration's chief architect of many domestic anti-terror policies adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 that drastically curtailed civil liberties in America.

Ashcroft defended the policies as necessary to prevent another attack and strongly supported a sweeping anti-terror law that gave the government the power to tap phones, track Internet usage and detain immigrants.

During nearly four years in office, he became a lightning rod for criticism from Democrats and civil rights groups.

But even on the day President George W Bush accepted his resignation, Ashcroft gave a very different perspective on his tenure than the one offered by his critics.

Yes, his detractors do get a look-in, in deference to balance, but it wouldn't do to list the facts, you see, because that would be biased.

Ashcroft, who was nominated by President Bush for the top job at Justice after losing his Senate seat to a dead man, has drawn fierce criticism from liberals and conservatives alike.

His legacy includes boosterism of the so-called Patriot Act, a longstanding federal law-enforcement wish list of legal shortcuts that the atrocities of 11 September 2001 made it impossible for Congress to reject; covering the tits on a prominent bronze statue of Justice that always made him twitch; gleeful promotion of capital punishment; rounding up thousands of suspected terrorists, and failing to prosecute any of them successfully; advising the military that torture is fine so long as no one gets caught, and that the Geneva Conventions don't always apply; advising the federal bureaucracy that DoJ would help it fight any FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request from nosy reporters; making a further mockery of the Act of Posse Comitatus by actively encouraging military outfits to participate in terror-related law enforcement; wildly overplaying his hand whenever some small-fry terror suspect like Jose Padilla popped up on the radar; warning the public that criticizing the so-called Patriot Act is an act of disloyalty verging on treason; inventing an arbitrary class of person called an "enemy combatant" so that writs of habeas corpus can be ignored at the government's convenience; prosecuting a crusade against pornography, apparently another deadly threat to US national security; and turning out the DoJ as a sort of "copyright 911" hotline so that the public might pay the bills of companies that wish to defend their intellectual property.

Clearly, he will be missed.

UPDATE
From warblogging.com, "Read in the White House":

"John Ashcroft is out. John Ashcroft is in. Or, at least, that's the way it may as well be. The White House is replacing John Ashcroft with Alberto Gonzales, or at least plans to. Gonzales is the current White House Counsel, and may be considered John Ashcroft without the fear of felines."

Ah, the man who unilaterally abolished international law and the Geneva Conventions, when not promoting torture. Fear not, ABC News is tripping out on his Murcan Dream:

"From humble beginnings, to Harvard to the White House..."

So that's alright then. Move along chaps, nothing to see here; we buried the important bits in paragraph 10:

"His term as White House counsel was not without controversy, as he fought with Congress to keep the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy commission meetings secret and defended the administration's right to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely without formal charges and to deny them access to counsel or to protection from the court system."

Holy war, batman! They're digging in for Dien Bien Phu II (Die Harder).

Through the glory hole

2004-11-04T13:07:00.002Z

The money shot

Zero-tolerance policing may have cleaned up Times Square but the tawdry peep-show around the corner on West 43rd Street still likes to treat freedom to a daily golden shower.

[Pictures by Smacked Face]

Mind you they’re so pissed off this morning in Manhattan that the shame was enough to make a shy bald Yogi reflect and scream:

"Contemplating (seriously) moving to Canada. I hate the bastard. And I will never forget the half of the country that put the son of a bitch back in office. Sad sad times here..."

Even the editorial typesetters of The New York Times were moved to remember that Dick is a killer.

"In his speech yesterday, Mr. Cheney stressed the president's mandate. Given the way Mr. Cheney behaved during the first term, it's unnerving to imagine what he may have in mind now."

Ms. Liberties, Maureen Dowd, is terrified by the split cleaving the left down the same moral axis as the rest of the country: sadomasochistic fetishism versus anything goes.

"W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.

"The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel. ...with this crowd, it's hard to imagine what would constitute overreaching. Invading France?"

Gazing at his navel, Gary Hart swears off self-abuse with the fantasy that if we all pull together all the icky stuff will just come and go. British public schoolboys are still stuck on that one, which is how they manage to disguise their paternalistic proclivities when preaching to the downtrodden. Hence the Independent column by a lonely Hart.

"When the American people recover their egalitarian impulses and their sense that we are all in this together, the Democrats will be there. When they become secure enough to embrace cultural diversity and difference, we will also be there. And when our people look for leadership and genuine strength based on mature thought and experienced wisdom, we will once more be there."

Thomas Friedman, the High Priest of bombing and anti-Islamofascism, suddenly admitted that his chickenhawks had dicks:

"We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is."

Even an alumnus of the Nixon White House was worried:

"The atrophy of the usual checks and balances requires a certain internal restraint."

What? From the media? Ah, well, perhaps that explains the conclusion of today’s Times editorial:

"[Bush] could be the uniter he promised to be, then failed to become, four years ago. He could put an end to a period in national history when too many people go to the polls on Election Day convinced that victory for the other side would mean disaster for the nation. A lot of voters felt that way on Tuesday, and now Mr. Bush has the chance to show them they were wrong.

Hello? Houston, we have a problem. Earth to the liberal conscience, do you read me? The vaporization of Falluja beckons. Are we allowed an opinion, or are there limits to free speech between the Bloomingdales adverts?

I wonder why poor people vote Republican.

"They have come to the conclusion that they are going to be screwed regardless of which party is in power, and they prefer to be screwed by a group that doesn't appear to hold them in contempt. Indeed, you get the impression that their hatred is so great that they are taunting the liberal attempts at policy solutions to their problems, almost saying we hate your contempt for us so much we'll prove it by voting against our own interests."

Others are less charitable.

"At the moment - as an expat who fled what I see as intolerable stupidity in American pop culture - I'm not inclined to be so generous to Archie Bunker and Friends. At least not any more generous to them than most Germans are toward their grandparents on the issue of how they voted in 1932. Bush isn't Hitler, but that's about the best thing I can say at the moment for America's 'silent majority'."

Here on the sub side of the special relationship's dominatrix, it's just as bad, with a cleavage like you haven't seen since the days of the miners' strike. The wolf in sheep’s clothing act only works if there’s something to whip out at the right moment.

Unfortunately for democracy, Bliarism is all mouth and no trousers when it counts. The figleaf might be endearing, but it’s not very liberating, especially not with tribal wars blinding us to our common humanity:

"Cristina Odone, the departing deputy editor of the New Statesman, has accused 'neo-left' plotters of subjecting her to a campaign of 'very personal vitriol' during her time at the weekly political magazine."

"I was never on the left. I was very much taken by Tony Blair's Christian socialist credentials, but I soon became disillusioned. What really got to me is how vicious this neo-left division could be. Because it's a very tribalist group they suspected me of being an interloper and a foreigner."

Has the left lost its voice? At each others throats and not a lovebite in sight.

"I hope those who supported a mealy-mouthed kowtowing to the Democrat machine have seen the error of their ways. The lesser evilism will always cause a drift to the right. Once agreed on economic policy, and the Republicrats are, you give up rational choices for the electorate. Then you are only left with appeals to voter prejudice, the Gagg tactic.

So, shout from the hip and outfox the bastards. Don’t blame those fooled by the three-card trick, stop pulling it and stand up for what you believe in. Lay off the intellectual masturbation and have a good poke more often. Preferably unspun and above the fold.

Maybe then there really might be a third-way alternative to Anyone But Bush and his theosophic Republicrats. For British voyeurs, this translates into PR polling and some honest P.R., instead of the Torygraf’s take on current affairs. Or are you waiting for the Return of the King too?

Got issues? Tell us about 'em, before it's too late.

Cue violins

2004-11-03T20:06:00.000Z

John 'Dignified' Kerry: It's Time to Let the Healing Begin

Posted by warszawa on November 3, 2004, 7:31 pm

Cue violins as the icecaps melt and Fallujah is vaporised.

Cue violins

Posted by Philip Challinor on November 3, 2004, 7:48 pm

... LONG CLOSE-UP of CHIMP and WOODENTOP looking meaningfully into each other's eyes.

WOODENTOP
Well, there's no productivity in argumentising any longer. We've got work -

CHIMP
We got work.
[small electronic burble from a rearward direction]
No, lemme finish, lemme finish - see, if you say we got work you sound more like an easter - I mean a western - you sound more - sorta like Elvis.
[small electronic burble from a rearward direction]
John Wayne, yeah. You sound more.

WOODENTOP
Well, let's get to it. We got a Murca to save.

LONG SHOT as they swagger into the sunset side by side, donning military helmets and aluminium suits as required.

MONTAGE of happy Floojans singing as they rebuild their homes under the watchful eyes of smiling GIs, happy Iranians hugging Israeli troops, happy Russians thanking US investors for their disinterested idealism, happy Britons cleaning the toilet.

Music swells.

Credits roll.

THE END.

The Return of the King

2004-11-03T15:46:00.000Z

Style Wars: The Phantom Menace

By Raoul Djukanovic, Why Do They Hate Us Correspondent

How to account for the Revenge of the Sith?

Religion? Nationalism? A bad hair day for G.I. John's Purple Heart? Do not adjust your mind, there is a problem with reality. Who’s afraid of Virginia’s wolf?

"I am Gandalf the White. And I come to you now at the turn of the tide. The Two Towers have fallen. All aboard for Armageddon. Kiss that ring to go back to the future in Middle Earth. Beware The Second Coming. Let our wings take dream..."

Check Junior’s one-fingered victory salute! As he warned Bob Woodward when he planned the attack, Dubya Money is no two-bit hustler in God’s Casino:

"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in defense of our great nation."

We is an empire, innit? Is we gonna just sit in a captive state until End Times?

"When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ... we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Check the Bush telegraph: it’s all over bar the recounting. Now they tell us about the clone wars:

"We entered this election season discouraged, as usual, by the caliber of the candidates running for president."

All the news that’s fit to reprint: tell me something I don’t know. Dearie me, late again? To flog a mocking bird to death:

News 2020
All the breaking news - fifteen years before events come together

The United States has confirmed that nuclear weapons have been installed at the research base at New Texas on Mars. Few details were given, but it is believed that the stockpile includes 108 warheads, mounted on Skywalker interplanetary missiles.

Only trouble is, everywhere we look there’s bad guys and the men in black are back in town with their three-card tricks in The New York Times.

"To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies."

What’s the matter with America? We’re not in Kansas anymore, dotty. There is no progressive face of capitalism except the nuance of empty rhetoric and token gestures. Profits over people; hippies-turned-yuppies: the third way is no middle path, not even if you call your conservatism compassionate. The dark arts of advertorial product placement.

"How much political awareness can one expect from a majority of people who have to hold down two or three jobs at the same time to eke out a living? Western Democracy as a system has become so popular with the rulers because the majority of people of people are too exhausted and too paralyzed to take active part in it. If it would work any different, America would have been a dictatorship long ago and so would Britain."

Blink and you’ll miss em; 35 million Americans are food insecure as well as spiritually inflected.

"This election was not won or lost over Iraq or terrorism. This election was won because of the general misinterpretation of what Christianity is in the US. Ohio voters were also being asked to vote on some issue related to gay marraige. This brought extra homophobes out to the polls who swayed the state in Bush's favour."

We all said at the outset that Ohio might be the new Florida, proclaimed CNN, without noting the trouble with Evoting in the Sunshine State, where strange swings of five percent can whip up out of nowhere.

And there’s chatter about who’ll take over sales and marketing in the Bush Corporation boardroom reshuffle. AJP puts it into perspective:

"It is clear that Powell will leave, but I would be very surprised if his job went to a neo-con. If it does, then I would suggest that the administration will be in even more trouble than it is now. This really would be a "bubble" administration drawing on the most narrow producer interest and the Christian right for support, but increasingly divorced from the broader business class."

Every which way it looks bad for America. What happened to the motherland, wonder the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers’ abandoned families:

"The election will leave the US divided, whoever wins, into a modern secular camp and one whose social attitudes seem more appropriate to 17th century Europe."

Word up: Captain Crusader is standing by with his Oliver Cromwell impersonation as a nauseating sideshow.

"Either way, the most worrying thing is that Bush has won the electoral vote, popular vote, the G.O.P. now dominate the house and the senate; it’s going to be four more years of even more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy. They now have a mandate, even if they still need a figleaf."

Bulwark or Bliar? The perils of gambling; Blighty’s dear leader really did care after all, he assures us now it’s too late:

"Mr Blair believes that Britain has to remain close to the sole superpower if it is to have influence in world affairs, regardless of whether Mr Bush or Mr Kerry is president."

So what will the poodle do now, poor thing? Resume duties as the American Foreign Minister like a good little gimp?

"Mr Blair's thinking operates on three levels: what is best for the British government, what is best for the Labour party and what is best for him personally."

Come hither; he’s all sexed up. Come judgment day, you can find him in da club, frontin’ up for Dub. Divide and rule protectorates? We wrote the fuckin’ laws. I’m in to fakin’ facts cuz I’m into making war, so come and shake my hand if you wanna be my whores. Yours for 50 pence, faster than we can gag last year’s Nobel Peace Prizewinner.

"Once Iran has the bomb, what will Israel do? Even Israel is not sure, but a large scale bombing raid, perhaps several raids, are quite possible. Currently about 40 percent of Israelis favor bombs over diplomacy. The percentage favoring bombs is increasing. Unless Iran backs off on its nuclear bomb program, the Israelis will probably strike."

Time to cough up those cliches for the Horror Ayatollahs. Oh, but what to do? The Guardian’s book is called The War We Couldn’t Stop. What price will the lapdog pay for barking back? Our Indian analysts take the long view:

"As a penance he'll have to double the number of UK troops in Iraq, and stay "shoulder-to-shoulder" (i.e. lips to posterior) on Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and whereever the Great Imbecile (for he looks like staying in the Tainted House, by hook or by crook) feels like storming in."

That oughta keep McJihad like jumping. Back to Anonymous from Foggy Bottom:

"The implications are enormous, yet the American electorate appears to be blinded by the Bush campaign's deliberate manipulations of 9/11."

Come off it. Who’s going to investigate the Reichstag Fire? Fear of the night of the long knives shuts us up while Dubya Money cashes in with his Texas Chainsaw Massacre:

DUBYASPEAK
"A lot of people ask me stupid fuckin’ questions. A lot of people think that what I say on the record or what I talk about off the record, that I actually do in real life or that I believe in it. Like if I say I’ll liberate somebody, that I'm actually gonna do it or that I care about it. Well, shit, if you believe that then I'll kill you. You know why? Cuz I'm a – Criminal!"

You God damn right.

"My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge
That'll stab you in the head whether you're an Airb or friend.
Or a turrst expert or savage pleb,
Rags on heads - hate Airbs? The answer's yes.
Islamophobic? Nah, you're just U.S.A.-phobic,
Starin’ at my fields, watchin’ my derricks pumpin’.
That's my motherfuckin’ oil, you'd better let go of it
That belongs to my cronies, you'll never get hold of it.
Hey, it's me, elected, whoops, people detected
That I was installed by a fraud. Forget it. We goin’ to war.
How many countries you s’posed to invade
When your first-term report sends you directly to jail?
C'mon! - Relax guys, I like the Quran
Right, Bandar? Give me an Allah."

BANDAR BUSH
"Allah!"

DUBYASPEAK
"Please Lord, this world needs Jesus.
Heal these Airbs, help us destroy these demons.
Oh, and please send Bandar a brand new car
And a prostitute while his wife's sick in the hospital.
Peacenik preachers, left-wing teach-ins,
You can't reach me, my mom can't neither.
You can't teach us a goddamn thing
Cuz I got TV, wit’ Fox on cable
So you ain't able to stop these thoughts.
You can't shop me for poppin’ these towers
And you can't stop me from droppin’ each March
Wit’ a brand new Satan for these fuckin’ retards.
Duhhh, and to think, it's just little ol' me.
Mr. Don't Give A f**k still won't leave."

Vote or die, warned Puff Daddy, but it wasn’t enough. Leader of the free world? Bin Laden, Putin, Karimov and Co are laughing all the way to Hell and back. Roll on Civil War Redux; speak out before free speech just isn’t free:

"We put together an unprecedented ground operation, but it was matched by the zealots on the right. We experienced an explosion in the blog world and started a nascent liberal radio network, but our message machine was far outmatched by the rightwing noise machine (Fox News, the Washington Times, Drudge Report, Talk Radio, etc.) We put forth quality candidates in races nationwide, only to see most outclassed and outgunned by a GOP which ran on three simple tenets: God, guns and gays."

Right on Daily Kos, but the serious battles are about to begin. Enter Eminem to preach power to the people in the moshpit.

Comin’ a-getcha straight out da hope quarter: what’s so weird about white guys rapping? Wasn’t Elvis the first wigga? Slim don’t do black music, he don’t do white music; him make fight music for high school kids. Medicine for the soul if you can handle the prescription; he even ditched the misogynistic queer-baiting for five minutes. Christ on a carousel, it’s the Jedi Knight in shining armour.

"Come along follow me as I lead through the darkness
As I provide just enough spark that we need to proceed
Carry on, give me hope, give me strength
Come with me and I won't steer you wrong
Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog
To the light at the end of the tunnel
We gonna fight, we gonna charge, we gonna stomp, we gonna march
Through the swamp, we gonna mosh through the marsh
Take us right through the doors (c'mon)"

Furious styles for the future. Rock n roll? No good, start the dance and mix it up to reclaim the streets. Fuck who wants to be a millionaire, this is no time for moral cowardice.

"The United States is a bitterly divided nation, at war with itself. Tuesday was merely one battle in a long term war for the heart and soul of our nation."

It rips being you without eyelid screws, but it sucks to be suffering when nothing’s to lose:

Regarding "The Tiresome Legacy of Holden Caulfield" (Meanwhile, July 3) by George F. Will:

"Mr. Will's attack on "The Catcher in the Rye" betrays all the buttoned-down aridity of the far right in America. The dried-up intellectualizing of this pencil-sucking dweeb smells of the grave. He has never been broke, got drunk or smoked a joint. More to the point, has never gone wrong or felt wrong. What a sad boast. He reminds me of Chekhov's "Man in a Case," wrapped in a mental overcoat and galoshes in all seasons.

"Holden Caulfield, for all his gauche phrase-making, felt empathy for those who were not of the herd. As Nietzsche said: "The strong are weak when confronted with the organized instincts of the herd." May the likes of Mr. Will never ride herd on America. It would suffocate."

DOUGLAS HAMILTON
Brussels

Should we leave them to beat the shit out of each other just because they won’t do what we tell them? Speak the truth.

Just like Serbian radicals in 1996, when the boot was on the other foot. Slobo is on trial, so why not Bush and Blair? Would you serve international justice on your own agenda?

"That the International Criminal Court was set-up by statute to prosecute the West's, more specifically the U.S.'s, official enemies is clear from the one startling omission from the statute's definition of war crimes, that of Nuremberg's 'supreme international crime', the crime against peace of aggressive war. The crime that the U.S. and its allies committed in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. So, the ICC enshrines impunity from prosecution for the supreme crime for the world's leading practitioner of it."

Justice Pal's words at the Tokyo war crimes trial still apply:

"When the conduct of the nations is taken into account, the law will perhaps be found to be that only a lost war is a crime."

Don’t expect to read about that in The New York Times. Media by Milosevic standards? It don’t look good for the democracy deficit in the Untied Status of Amnesia:

"When no one remembers what you did wrong, being American means never having to say you're sorry."

Contrary to popular belief, the revolution of everyday life will be televised, but only if it succeeds. So let’s hope they’ve got a gonzo doctor of spin calling the plays instead of Dan Rather:

"John Kerry needs something on the order of a 55 or 60-yard field goal to win this," Dan says.

Better than a touchdown, according to the New York Times. That’s infotainment:

"The troops were great out there," Casey continued. "It's not their fault the guys with the clipboards just couldn't put this one away.

"Casey said that, although the U.S. military did not win, it did set records for kills, yardage gained, palaces overrun, defensive stops, and military bases stolen."

KEEP IT RAOUL
Do we give a shit? Or is it all just one big fat big up yourself, bo selecta and bomb bole nath to the final frontier?

Never mind the bollocks, hang the DJ!

A letter from America

2004-11-03T02:51:00.000Z

Attack of the clones

By Raoul Djukanovic, Why Do They Hate Us Correspondent

Freedom fries, the power of nightmares and the paranoid style in American politics; has the resistable rise of the right marched John Kerry into the White House? Or was it just a bad dream?

"The world was almost won by such an ape! The nations put him where his kind belong. But don't rejoice too soon at your escape - The womb he crawled from is still going strong." (Bertolt Brecht)

Lawyers are waiting to pounce; is nothing sacred? Dream on. Have faith in America, counseled Paul Krugman, exposing the myth of liberal bias in newspeak:

"Regular readers won't be in any doubt about who I want to win, though New York Times rules prevent me from giving any explicit endorsement. (Hint: it's the side that benefits from large turnout.) Above all, though, I want to see democracy vindicated, and the stain of 2000 eradicated, by a clean election in which as many people as possible get to cast their votes, and have those votes counted."

To those wilting in establishment hot air, Yankeedoodle proposed direct action to subvert the pantomime:

"Fix bayonets.

Go vote for John Kerry and drive that gibbering Republican monkey back to his shitsplat Texas ranch. Restore America. Our future depends on a Democratic victory. Take no prisoners and bayonet their wounded because that's what they'll do to America if we lose. They spent four years sowing the wind - give them a whirlwind in return.

Go vote."

Well, it was a bumper-sticker line-up of a turnout and a record bill to boot: more than $1 billion spent on political advertising since the start of the year. So who’s your daddy? The kids?

Holy ghosts, Slim Shady; even Lenin is struggling to get his head around it:

"Republican pollster Frank Luntz comes on Newsnight and says the youth vote has turned out and the 'security moms' are swinging back to the Democrats. John Simpson reports a decided absence of enthusiasm at the Republican shindig. Massive turnout in poor and black areas. I thought Bush had it all locked up, but now I'm swinging the other way..."

Bend over backwards; stop at nothing? The Chimp-in-Chief sure seemed to think democracy would be exercised:

"There's just something refreshing about giving it your all and then saying the people will make the right decision. And I believe I'm going to win."

A few pleasantries later, the humble press corps was dismissed:

"Listen, we're off. I've enjoyed it. Thank you for your coverage"

People know where I stand, he says. Decline and fall. Check the decadence in Tom Wolfe’s gamble on Dubya Money:

"I cannot stand the lock-step among everyone in my particular world. They all do the same thing, without variation. It gets so boring. There is something in me that particularly wants it registered that I am not one of them."

Tough love, top gun? You take my breath away. Put down your weapon; you have 20 seconds to comply:

"Forget about Kerry, whose inability to elucidate a plausible alternative to Bush just emphasizes the fact that the election is really a referendum on Bush and the Rovean politics of deceit. It is also an opportunity to get out from under the debilitating logic of the war on terror, where each fight in the war is just the cause of more terrorism (it's like a headbutting competition, where the 'winner' is the last guy to fall down).

"The Spanish people faced a similar choice in their last election, and threw the bastards out. There comes a point in politics when politicians obviously have so little respect for the electorate that the electorate has to reassert who is the master and who is the servant."

In Baghdad, opinions are stronger still. Of course, thanks to the Orwellian nightmare, we have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. So whaddya say, Manaf al-Ubaidi?

"If Satan was Bush's rival, I'd vote for Satan."

Er, steady on.

"Bush sold us a big lie," continued al-Ubaidi. "He said he was saving Iraqis from the suffering and despotism of Saddam's regime, but in return for this 'favour', we've seen massive destruction in our country, people's suffering has got worse, and now no one feels safe anymore."

The people of Falluja, of whom the U.S. killed more women and children than combatants in April, wrote to Kofi Annan to beg for protection against a post-election onslaught:

"Your excellency and the whole world know that the US and their allies have destroyed our country on the pretext of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Now, after their own mass destruction and the killing of thousands of civilians, they have admitted that they have not found any.

"But they have said nothing about the crimes they have committed. The whole world is silent, and even the killing of Iraqi civilians is not condemned. Will the US be paying compensation, as it made Iraq do after the 1991 Gulf War?"

Mr Bombastic was so upset that he wrote to the editor:

Dear Mr Gray,

On the lunchtime Channel 4 News programme yesterday (approx. 12:10pm, 1/11/04), a reporter in Iraq said Falluja was 'the cancer at the heart of the insurgency.' This is propaganda. The 'insurgency' is actually a legitimate resistance to an illegal occupation. Why did the reporter not mention this?

What a rotten lot we are in cyberspace, ponders Philip Challinor.

"Partisan, politicised, sceptical of the idea that there might be such an organism as a "disinterested journalist" and, worst of all, inclined to hold the poor devils to account. Truly, we do not deserve them."

Not that ranting and raving will stop anyone from building the Death Star to conquer the final frontier:

"U.S. military control of space is one of four missions spelled out under a national space policy adopted by former president Bill Clinton in 1996. The goal is to make sure U.S. forces have unhindered access to space and space-based services and to deny an enemy any similar benefits."

But back to the greater of two evils, as seen from the relative safety of Canada.

"The Bushes, father and son, have not only dined with the devil, but have often invited themselves to his table. The bin Ladens and the Bushes have been longtime business partners, and the family of the future terrorist chief indirectly financed George W. Bush's political career.

"This unnatural alliance has continued since the Sept. 11 attacks: Bush Sr. is a top official in one of the biggest private investment funds in the USA, Carlyle, a group that has invested heavily in the arms industry. The Bradley tanks and the missiles used in the latest war against Iraq are made by firms controlled by Carlyle…and the bin Ladens. For the latter are Bush's associates within this investment fund."

Adventure capitalism continues unchecked by the corporate media, regardless of the kinder second-term theory. Compassionate conservatism? Surely we value all human life equally or we lose our humanity. This racket's been going on for a long time; that's why we needed a People's History in the first place:

"The success of the liberal-conservative coalition in creating a national anti-Communist consensus was shown by how certain important news publications cooperated with the Kennedy administration in deceiving the American public on the Cuban invasion. The New Republic was about to print an article on the CIA training of Cuban exiles, a few weeks before the invasion. Historian Arthur Schlesinger was given copies of the article in advance. He showed them to Kennedy, who asked that the article not be printed, and The New Republic went along. James Reston and Turner Catledge of the New York Times, on the government's request, did not run a story about the imminent invasion. Arthur Schlesinger said of the New York Times action: "This was another patriotic act, but in retrospect I have wondered whether, if the press had behaved irresponsibly, it would not have spared the country a disaster." What seemed to bother him, and other liberals in the cold war consensus, was not that the United States was interfering in revolutionary movements in other countries, but that it was doing so unsuccessfully."

Another tough guy can’t get over his military-industrial complex.

"The country was on a permanent war economy which had big pockets of poverty, but there were enough people at work, making enough money, to keep things quiet. The distribution of wealth was still unequal. From 1944 to 1961, it had not changed much: the lowest fifth of the families received 5 percent of all the income; the highest fifth received 45 percent of all the income. In 1953, 1.6 percent of the adult population owned more than 80 percent of the corporate stock and nearly 90 percent of the corporate bonds. About 200 giant corporations out of 200,000 corporations--one-tenth of 1 percent of all corporations--controlled about 60 percent of the manufacturing wealth of the nation."

Why this isn’t bigger deal? Well, to see it, you have to get beyond the rise and fall of the Great Powers and look at history from below, although they’ll tell you you’re talking out of your ass if you argue with the prophets of our national religion.

[UPDATE: the above "quote" from Caesar appears to be a fake]

A British reader writes:

"My view of history is that some time between Yorktown and the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, the capital - and the centre of gravity - of the Anglo-Saxon imperium shifted from Westminster to Washington.

"We may regret that, but even so - and as empires go - flawed as this one is, it's a whole lot better than anything else that has been on offer in our time: whether the Bolsheviks, Nazis or the Islam of the Ayatollahs and Osama bin Laden. The EU is a silly joke. Someone has to be Caesar and try to see that the roads are safe."

Yeah, right, says another:

"Someone does have to be Caesar, I suppose, but they got rid of Julius. And Bush is more like Nero or Caligula, only without the sex."

Where do you draw the line? This special relationship feels like the reason we say no to strangers: creepy. So who’s the bogeyman?

"To hear the candidates tell it, the presidential election [came] down to a simple, albeit scary, choice."

The problem is that Public Enemy Number One sounds like he sort of makes sense, if you ignore the religious impediment to reason and all that evil turr, but then that would make you a turrst if you said it made sense to do as he suggests. Osama bin Goldstein indeed: he tells us why everything sucks, but it doesn’t help a jot:

"Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security."

So that’s that solved then? Fat chance, we don't deal with terrorists unless we remember what’s in the pipeline for the Iraqi resistance, stunts aside:

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Saboteurs have mounted the biggest attacks yet on Iraq's oil infrastructure, blowing up three pipelines in the north and hitting exports via Turkey, oil officials said Tuesday."

Bloodbath in Falluja won't keep it off the traders' screens. The market’s not bothered; killing never stopped a war profiteer, but the mood music is important:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil may cost as much as 10 percent less next year if U.S. Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry defeats President Bush in Tuesday's election."

Still, Big Oil wins either way, even if they have their favourite political gangsters.

"Though the outcome of the U.S. presidential election is unlikely to have a radical or immediate impact on the energy sector, a victory by President Bush would be a boost for companies in the oil sector, analysts say."

So much at stake and so little we can do. Is there an alternative? If not, we're in a mess.

"The threats to global justice and world peace come not from a single person or party but from systems, and that no matter who is elected, those systems - empire and capitalism - remain in place."

"There is no hope for the long-term sustainability of human life on the planet if empire and capitalism are not replaced with more ecologically viable and humane ways of organizing political and economic life. And both Bush and Kerry are committed - by their words and deeds - to the maintenance of the capitalist empire."

We interrupt this broadcast with breaking news. This just in from our team of Eastern bloc election monitors: proof that the U.S. election is fixed. Either Bush or Kerry is going to win it.

Hard to get the horn really, as a BBC correspondent discovered:

"One man told me it normally took him ten minutes to vote and he was going to be late for work, which shocked him."

The banality of evil; Yes Men have so much to answer for.

"That's what's amazing about the discourse in this country," says Mike Bonnano, one of the two weapons-grade ironists behind Yes Bush Can. "People are so used to complete absurdity that nothing surprises them any more."

I wonder what he's talking about? Simple. The problem is you. And you and you and... me. And we, the people. And you can't get more American than that.

Corporate media

2004-11-02T19:06:00.000Z

You takes your money and you pays the price in invisible Iraqi civilians. Not that it's your fault; you're just trying to make a living and you certainly didn't dream it all up. The cost of admission can be crippling, but it doesn't gnaw like poverty. Top of the billboard charts? Colgate works a 12-hour day, just like you:

"The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social 'personality': It is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism... Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a 'psychopath.'"

Cunningham Curmudgeon's spiral observer can see what's round the corner:

News 2020
News so new it hasn't happened yet

When it eventually happens, you'll read here that we told you so

The number of British newspapers being edited by empty suits is still growing, according to a study released today. Both Fox International and Murdoch Disney, who between them own all the country's major national newspapers, have begun employing more and more suits without finding it necessary to find people to fill them up.

Now that computer checking has eliminated the need for proofreaders, and international, government-sponsored fact supply agencies have obviated the need for reporters to leave their desks, news corporations are beginning to find human editors a needless expense.

Retired Guardian editor Allan Fusbudget is ambivalent about the development. "There's certainly less risk of editorial interference if there's nobody inside the editor's suit," he said. "But I think that without a guiding hand - if there's only a cuff to help - I think some reporters may find it difficult to retain their objectivity."

"We don't think there's been any decline in standards," said Murdoch Disney spokesman Meese Hackett. "Whatever job we're hiring for, we've always hired whoever's best suited for the work." Both Murdoch and Fox operate a strict equal opportunities policy, with equal numbers of posts going to male and female outfits, and with no discrimination on the grounds of necktie garishness or shoulder-pad extension.

In fact, several newspapers report greater efficiency as a result of "cutting out the middleman" between Government press offices and the reporters who transcribe their releases for the general public. "There's a lot less interference," said Independent reporter Lydia Quinone. "Before, there was no guarantee that what went out in the paper would even resemble what I'd written. Now that it's just the Armani pinstripe in charge, there's no problem."

News agencies are also making savings in other ways. Empty suits do not claim dry-cleaning bills on their expense accounts, or impose Byzantine filing systems on their staff; and only a few of the more exclusive made-to-measure type take drugs. "It's remarkable how smoothly things run now that there's nothing inside the suit," Ms Quinone observed. "I'll be very surprised if it doesn't catch on in other professions."

Indeed, several advertising agencies have expressed an interest in recruiting more suits. A spokesman from Frogmorton Cullups, of New York, said that the agency was already looking into the possibility of specifying "Empties welcome" on future application invites.

Can't talk now, I'm on a conference call.

May force be with you!

2004-11-01T14:55:00.000Z

The Empire strikes back

By Raoul Djukanovic, Why Do They Hate Us Correspondent

You can't beat Jewish humour, although Portnoy did like to pull off his complaint. Fresh from fooling around with Israel's pound of flesh in Operation Shylock, Philip Roth's intergalactic raid into metafictionist territory continues, leaving a South African Nobel prize-winner puzzling over which bits to hold onto:

"In any sensible reading, The Plot Against America is "about" the presidency of George W. Bush in only the most peripheral way. It needs a paranoid reader to turn it into a roman à clef for the present. However, one of the things that The Plot Against America is about is, precisely, paranoia. In Roth's story, the plot from above, which is immediately a plot against America's Jews but ultimately a plot against the American republic, works so insidiously that at first sensible people cannot see it. Those who talk about a plot are dismissed as crazy..."

Tell that to sceptical relatives of the dead from Ground Zero of Dubya Money's reelection campaign, as showcased by the unreality docusoap dubbed Fear Factor, but better known as conventional coverage.

Last week, victims' families enlisted 100 prominent Americans in their own campaign: to hear the truth about the national emergency on 911. As October's outraged Harper's cover screamed, the Kean Commission was way too keen to whitewash something and absolve everyone of any responsibility.

How else to put the theorising to bed except with evidence? Noam Chomsky puts the wind up the conspiratorially minded by quipping that government agencies actively generate conspiracy theories to keep people diverted, stupid and under control. So read the questions and make up your own mind about their appeal to New York's Attorney General:

"The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.

"Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry."

Here's Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Robert in the World Trade Center collapse that left Rummy itching to unleash a multi-billion-dollar bombing bonanza over Baghdad:

"During one of the 9/11 Commission hearings, Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste said, 'This is not an investigation. This is an exposition'. Justice for 9/11 Steering Committee member, Kyle F. Hence, who opened the event and introduced the Complainants, said that during recent Congressional hearings Commission Vice-Chairman, Lee Hamilton, openly admitted, 'We did not answer all of the questions posed by victim family members.'"

Taking decisions is difficult for the modern American; nothing but tough choices about the lesser of two evils. Coke or Pepsi? Both leave a nasty aftertaste, belches bystander John Pilger, with an echo from Warszawa:

"So who's gonna win? The pro-war candidate or the pro-war candidate? The filthy-rich populist phoney or the filthy-rich populist phoney? The all-American warrior who's gonna break Bin Laden's bottom or the all-American warrior who's gonna break Bin Laden's bottom? This could be the most important decision we never have to make."

Take Florida, as the Bushistas like to: swathes of liberal suburbia apparently undecided, reports an incredulous Democratic volunteer in an open letter to sympathisers in Brazil.

"Now, keep in mind that our canvassing list contained only nominal Kerry supporters. Things were not encouraging: there are a lot of reason-challenged grade AAA morons (known here as "undecided voters") still out and about in these parts. People seem to be genuinely perplexed as to how to go about making a choice between good and bad, black and white, night and day.

"And mind you, we're supposed to be living in one of Florida's more liberal enclaves, Gainesville being a university town and all. It's all a little disconcerting because I live among these folks and I don't have the slightest clue what goes on in their heads. I'm sure Brazilian news analysis has probably given you a much better grip on our situation than I myself have. So please let me hear your take on it."

In case you thought they sounded paranoid, check out this Wisconsin voter who won't ID herself for the Washington Post:

"A woman attending her third Kerry rally will give only her first name of Mary. "We're steadfast Democrats, but the bosses are Republicans, and in this economy, well, you can't risk anything."

Enter Osama bin forgotten, mentioned precisely zero times in Bush's last three State of the Union addresses. Yes folks, it's the return of the whack and the gamblers among us were left in no doubt as to what this meant:

"Yesterday Ladbrokes shortened the odds on a Bush win from 4/6 to 8/13, as the bin Laden video prompted a rush of money on the Republicans."

Was this Karl Rove's much-touted October surprise? Scepticism abounds, even if the mainstream media prefer not to shoot from the hip like Xmphora:

"It is impossible to know whether we should take anything bin Laden says at face value, but this comment on the timing of the attacks is interesting. While the timing of the broadcast makes it clear that Osama is playing right into Bush's election campaign by reminding Americans of why they instinctively look to Bush for security from the likes of bin Laden, the sly attack on Bush's goat book reading leaves enough ambiguity that Bush can argue that bin Laden is actually campaigning for Kerry, thus further increasing the value of bin Laden's words for Bush. Brilliant. Bin Laden continues to earn his pay."

Honi soit qui mal y pense; with enemies like bin Laden, who needs intelligence assets?

The administration which dreamed up Frankenstein's monster in Afghanistan rolled out its big guns last week to denounce the Bushistas for making the problem worse. Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter blames Bush and Blair for exacerbating anti-American feeling among Muslims, sidestepping suggestions that his own support for the repressive Shah of Iran produced Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution.

"The entire Islamic world condemned Iran. Nowadays, because of the unwarranted invasion of Iraq by Bush and Blair, which was a completely unjust adventure based on misleading statements, and the lack of any effort to resolve the Palestinian issue, [there is] massive Islamic condemnation of the United States."

Big Zbig, Carter's national security adviser and an architect of support for the Afghan mujahideen, to say nothing of his writings about the Great Game on the grand chessboard of Central Asia, argues that America ought to lead rather than dominate:

"Both candidates have become prisoners of a worldview that fundamentally misdiagnoses the central challenge of our time. President Bush's "global war on terror" is a politically expedient slogan without real substance, serving to distort rather than define. It obscures the central fact that a civil war within Islam is pitting zealous fanatics against increasingly intimidated moderates. The undiscriminating American rhetoric and actions increase the likelihood that the moderates will eventually unite with the jihadists in outraged anger and unite the world of Islam in a head-on collision with America."

So how to make sense of America’s fall to the dark side? As J.M. Coetzee stresses in his review of Philip Roth's book:

"The Plot Against America cannot be true since many of the events it describes are universally known never to have occurred. For instance, there was no President Charles Lindbergh in the White House in the years 1941–1942, carrying out secret orders from Berlin."

True enough, although Dubya’s daddy’s daddy was still getting rich off Hitler until around the same time. And Norman Mailer describes America's nationalistic fervour as pre-fascist; we've been here before:

"Naturally the common people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." (Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II)

But enough of Bushitler fetishism; the problem is far more serious than one man. Quiet apart from the systemic crises, there's Darth Vader Dick and his Energy Task Force to contend with. The Wizard of Oz and all that. And it goes back further still; the first invasion of globalisation was in 1492 while, as Gore Vidal reminds us, 1776 is but a distant memory.

"That was something special on Earth and Jefferson was something special on Earth when he said that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - nobody had ever used that phrase in the constitution before or set that out as a political goal for everyone. So, out of that came the energies of the United States to have made it the number one country in the world and the most inventive and the most creative, and then the Devil entered Eden and we ended up with an Asiatic empire, and a European empire, and a South American dependency and we are not what we were. The people get no education. I call it 'the United States of Amnesia'."

Blechtel! It's getting worse.

In order to render the strange logic of dreams, Freud cited the old excuses about a borrowed kettle: (1) I never borrowed your kettle; (2) I returned it to you intact; (3) the kettle was already broken when you lent it to me. Such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments, of course, confirms exactly what it endeavours to deny - that I broke your kettle, rather as the U.S. planned to invade Iraq come what may.

"Not since the 1846 attack on Mexico in order to seize California has an American government been so nakedly predatory."

Surveying the Republic's last hurrah, Vidal draws our attention to The Day The American Empire Ran Out Of Gas:

"On September 16, 1985, when the Commerce Department announced that the United States had become a debtor nation, the American Empire was as dead, theoretically, as its predecessor the British. Our empire was seventy-one years old and had been in ill financial health since 1968. Like most modern empires, ours rested not so much on military prowess as on economic primacy."

Is the neoconservative warmongering of the Project for a New American Century an attempt to sustain military-industrial primacy and offset economic decline? Or is that paranoia talking? The Chinese government doesn't think so:

"The philosophy of the 'Bush Doctrine' is in essence force. It advocates the United States should rule over the whole world with overwhelming force, military force in particular. Hardly strange, then, that Bush and his administration still insist on arguing that their decision to go to war in Iraq and US policy on the issue were right."

Beijing must be biased, right? As The Curmudgeon's Palanthir reveals, Washington wants China to stop guzzling oil:

"They've been using renewable resources for thousands of years," Mr Tiptweeze said to gusts of mirth from the White House press corps. "They've got the biggest biomass resources in the world. I mean, if a rickshaw puller isn't renewable, all he's got to do is get married."

Ignorance and xenophobia have much to answer for; the young illiterates for Bush are a case in point.

All the more reason, therefore, to value the real Slim Shady and his "Get up, stand up" redemption song.

Turnout will decide the election; could hip-hop's Jedi Knight shock the vote with lightsaber lyrics and a patriot act that keeps it real? The Roving Eye investigates:

"For an 18-year-old voting for the first time, 'Mosh' provokes the same impact that the barricades of May 1968 in Paris did on the 'children of Mao and Coca-Cola', as film genius Jean-Luc Godard put it. The aesthetic of the video may be cartoon teenage wasteland - a code easily identified by Eminem's core audience - but hardly could there be a better metaphor for the current US political nightmare than 'moshing'.

"The thing is, Eminem and director Inaba use 'moshing' to organize a strategic, political response to alienation and dystopia. Voting, in this case, is only the first, necessary step toward a society of real free speech and informed, participatory democracy."

What a battle that lies ahead; how will we know where to begin, regardless of who comes out on top once Tuesday's votes are counted and contested?

Like Eminem, Philip Roth trades in dystopian allegory; although not in the futuristic mould of "1984" or "Brave New World", his historical take is nonetheless just as arresting, for all its struggle to convince readers of the plausibility of its revelations:

"What the plot against America does to young Philip between the ages of seven and nine is terrible. It forces upon him - though less, it must be noted, at first hand than through the medium of newsreels and radio programs and from eavesdropping on his parents' worried conversations - a vision of a world based on hatred and suspicion, a world of them and us."

The heart of darkness grown brutal from the fare served up on wall-to-wall WebTV; this is the battleground of the future, as Frank Rich notes in his regular dissection of the dross that passes for news in modern America:

"'Vote for Him Before You Vote Against Him' is one of the slogans at the hilarious Web site Kerry-Haters for Kerry. If the cliché of 2000 remains true, that entertainment-addicted Americans will never let a tedious president into their living rooms for four long years, then Kerry, like Al Gore, is toast. But now that Kerry enters the final stretch of 2004 with a serious chance of unseating an incumbent in wartime, a competing theory also rises: It's possible for America to overdose on entertainment."

Could infomercial rollback really be around the corner? Hard to picture a revival of investigative journalism when The New York Times can identify what's wrong with Al Jazeera but fail to diagnose its own problems. Before you get too paranoid, take a look in the mirror, as Jon Stewart urges his peers in the Crossfire of rolling news. Up close and personal with Democracy Inaction, warts and all: it was never going to be pretty peeling back the cloying fog of political correctness. So take it away, honest Jon:

"In a chapter on the media, [Stewart's] book abandons all pretence in a heartfelt rant. 'These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far,' reads the first draft, before, uh, editorial revisions. '"Was the president successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was true? And the excuses. My God, the excuses! "Hey, we just give the people what they want. What can we do, this administration is secretive. But the last season of Friends really is news." The unmitigated gall of these weak-willed ... You’re supposed to be helping us, you indecent piles of shit!'"

Now that's what I call music to my ears. Keep on truckin'!

Kremlinology 101

2004-10-31T22:43:00.000Z

Hot off the speakwrite...

Blair seeks to duck impeachment with Feb election

Andrew Porter, Deputy Political Editor
The Sunday Times

TONY BLAIR has ordered his closest aides to make urgent plans for a snap election. The move, aimed at wrong-footing his opponents, could see the country going to the polls as early as February.

Bliar backs Falluja onslaught to get himself re-elected

"Blair believes that the first elections in Iraq in January will be held successfully and so may provide some "bounce" to a British election campaign held shortly afterwards."

Journalist parts company with reality

"Party strategists are also keen to reclaim ground on what they call "the trust issue". A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times recently found that trust in the prime minister had fallen sharply.

"It showed that two out of three people would not trust Blair to take the country to war again and only 29% said they trusted him on public services. Blair has admitted that he has a problem with "trust" and his pollsters say there is little sign from the public that this is likely to change soon.

"However, the economy is one area where his advisers believe that the government maintains some credibility."

"Blair has admitted that he has a problem with 'trust'"

Posted by warszawa on October 31, 2004, 9:18 pm

...just as some people have a problem with acne or dandruff. Nothing a good image consultant or beautician can't deal with.

I hate to use pompous phrases like "a textbook example of the debasement of political discourse", but this is a textbook example of the debasement of political discourse.

JAN: There's a limit to debasement.
TOM: De floor?

Don't bomb Falluja

Not that The Observer had a word to say about the Lancet report's macabre milestone, regardless of whether the death toll of Iraqi innocents has already hit six figures.

Although they did have the Queen and a Dimbleby expressing concern about climate change, next to the adverts for cheap flights, and all without a mention of the Iraqi Expeditionary Force's quest for corporate freedom in the land of the world's second-largest oil reserves and other American obsessions.

"We don't do body counts"

2004-10-30T16:14:00.000+01:00

Thus spake General Tommy Franks, quarterback of the Iraq invasion, before his retirement from U.S. Central Command. Never mind what the Geneva Conventions say about an occupying power's duty to prevent civilian deaths, the USuk playmakers of Intcom Inc. had other ideas about their obligations.

Now that researchers from the U.S. and Iraq have published a survey in The Lancet suggesting that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since March, 2003, journalists, politicians and spin doctors have suddenly discovered the figures quoted by Iraq Body Count, whose findings they'd studiously ignored until now.

Of course, the fact that Iraq Body Count merely collates the death toll reported in the media is conveniently overlooked by said organs of information. Instead, the BBC appears to be devoting more time to rubbishing The Lancet's findings than it did to debunking the pre-war propaganda about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Non-Existence, despite all the evidence in the public domain at the time.

It is worth noting that the report's researchers - from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, the Department of Community Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University, Baghdad and Columbia University's School of Nursing - warn that their estimate is a conservative figure; it would be much higher if it included the slaughter in Falluja, where civilians, more than half of them women and children, accounted for three-quarters of those killed in April.

As Dr. Gilbert Burnham, one of the authors of the new report, stressed in an interview, even the interpretations of the data are conservative:

IRAQ'D: "What do you think will be the ultimate effect of your study?"

BURNHAM: "I can tell you what I hope. ... My hope is that there will be some serious consideration about how you conduct warfare in densely populated urban areas to avoid civilian casualties. We've seen over the last century how, in conflict, the number of civilian casualties [has] risen dramatically in comparison to the number of military casualties.

"Before this latest event in Iraq, a general rule of thumb was that there would be ten to 15 civilian casualties for every military casualty. So we know that this number has been creeping up and that civilians have been increasingly bearing the brunt of conflicts. Certainly we've seen this in many developing countries, how civilians are intentionally targeted. I would never say that in the Iraq situation people are intentionally targeted at all. In fact, we have good evidence to show that the combat soldier on the ground in Iraq has not, at least in our sample, ever been engaged in inappropriate or improper activities. The deaths we were able to identify were predominantly from aerial attacks and not from individual soldiers.

"We did find three cases in which a person had been killed by a Coalition soldier. In one case it was a guard who had been caught up in some kind of crossfire and accidentally shot. In the second case it was someone shot approaching a checkpoint. The third one we didn't have a lot of details, so we don't really know. It might have been an insurgent, might not have been. In two out of the three cases, the Coalition soldier, which the Iraqis always identified as American, actually went to the house of the person killed and apologized."

This is not knee-jerk anti-imperialism; you don't get published in The Lancet without meeting rigorous tests of your methodology and science, especially not if the findings are this politically charged:

IRAQ'D: "Was this study peer reviewed?"

BURNHAM: "Oh, my goodness, was it ever. [Laughs] First off, nothing, nothing ever gets in the Lancet without a vigorous peer review. It's heavily peer-reviewed. And in the case of this article, it went through the full editorial review board several times and they sent it out for multiple reviews. I've written a few papers for the Lancet over the years and I've never had anything like the scrutiny that this one had."

The Lancet's editor, Dr Richard Horton, denied politics played any part in his decision to fast-track the publication of the study by releasing it online, rather than waiting to include it in the next print edition, which will hit newsstands after the American presidential election.

"The reason for publishing it quickly is to make the military planners stop and re-think their strategy."

The Coalition of the Illegal is meanwhile gearing up for another assault on Falluja, described yesterday by U.S Major-General Richard Natonski as "a cancer" and "a rats' nest". Leaving aside the whereabouts of America's new bogeyman, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, who was briefly upstaged last night by a new Osama bin Laden video from an equally unknown location, most of the people (aka. Untermenschen in the U.S. military lexicon) left in Falluja to face a flattening will be those unable to flee.

As Walter's excellent pamphlet on the impending bloodbath stresses:

DON’T BOMB FALLUJA

"After the US presidential elections, US statements reveal that Falluja and other rebel-held cities in Iraq will come under all-out attack, the purpose of which is to force elections on the Iraqi people.

"The US has more than enough troops to attack Falluja, but as soon as they do the area will once more erupt, and it will take everything the Americans have to control the surrounding villages … even Mosul, home to three million Sunnis, may explode.

"It is obvious that the slaughter arising from these attacks could be dreadful. Britain will be complicit in these attacks, directly, by redeploying British troops to the centre of Iraq to free up US forces to take part in the planned assaults. There could even be particular danger for British troops, if Iraqi insurgents choose to attack them in order to undermine support for the coalition and the operations in Iraq.

"These elections are for the US and UK governments to claim they have liberated Iraq. Four out of five Iraqis want the troops to leave immediately. If Iraq wanted western-influenced elections there wouldn’t be an insurgency.

"Reporting of events in Iraq has been skewed by the dangerous situation there, pro-occupation bias and by the intimidation of journalists and news agencies both by the US and the interim government of its own creation."

Enough. Demonstrations outside Downing Street will demand a withdrawal of British troops when the attack begins; it is time to rip away the figleaf and express our disgust:

"It is outrageous that the soldiers of the Black Watch will be risking their lives, but what hardly seems to be mentioned is that their deployment will help put at risk thousands of Iraqi lives."

What to do? Make some noise. Thanks to Danny the well-read for the reminder that a man's a man for a' that:

"Then let us pray that come it may
(As come it will for a' that),
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree an a' that.
For a' that, an a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That man to man, the world o'er,
Shall brithers be for a' that."

As another Scottish literary genius noted in The Guardian this week, our complicity is so gentle. Great to be British, isn't it?

STOP PRESS:

Subject: The Lancet and the liberal conscience
Date: October 30, 2004 19:29:04 BST
To: clwyda@parliament.uk

Dear Ms. Clwyd,
Please read the [above] and let me know how many Iraqis will have to die before you demand a withdrawal of British troops. I find it increasingly difficult to comprehend the meaning of your job title; what is a special envoy on human rights in Iraq supposed to do if not uphold the right of Iraqi civilians not to be slaughtered?
Yours sincerely,
[gutrot]

Pace Nietzsche, the strong are weak when confronted by the organised instincts of the herd.

What's Cooking?

2004-10-29T13:38:00.000+01:00

From: gutrot
Subject: today's guardian column
Date: October 29, 2004 10:49:17 BST
To: mathesonjm@parliament.uk, cookr@parliament.uk

Dear Mr. Cook,

Your Guardian column today ("A strong Europe - or Bush's feral US capitalism") welcomes the European constitution as a commitment to "the same standards of human rights and democratic values". Moreover, in reference to next week's American election, you note that "if the US result goes wrong, it will be all the more important that we affirm our right to different European values."

As a British citizen, I wonder whether you share Clare Short's concerns (detailed in extracts from her book published in The Independent) about the undermining of "British constitutional arrangements and the democracy of the Labour Party" that enabled Tony Blair to mislead Parliament and the public to invade Iraq.

Since this was done in the name of standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with George W. Bush, and against the counsel of Britain's principal European allies, it would seem incumbent upon British politicians to demand that the Prime Minister be held to account for his complicity in an illegal invasion which, according to a new report in the Lancet, has now killed more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

Do you concede, as does Ms. Short, that Blair willfully deceived? If so, why should he not be forced, as were Peter Mandelson and Beverley Hughes, to resign? Since he has refused to stand down, there remains the ultimate sanction of impeachment. The case against the Prime Minister is clear, but a Commons majority is required. When can I expect a public statement from you calling on Labour MPs to support the impeachment motion currently being drafted?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Cartoon coverage

2004-10-28T14:19:00.000+01:00

The Doctor of Journalism offers a simple remedy for the immediate symptoms of America's violent polarisation:

BULLETIN: KERRY WINS GONZO ENDORSEMENT; DR THOMPSON JOINS DEMOCRAT IN CALLING BUSH "THE SYPHILIS PRESIDENT".

"Four more years of George Bush will be like four more years of syphilis," the famed author said yesterday at a hastily called press conference near his home in Woody Creek, Colorado.

"Only a fool or a sucker would vote for a dangerous loser like Bush. He hates everything we stand for, and he knows we will vote against him in November." Thompson, well known for the eerie accuracy of his political instincts, went on to denounce Ralph Nader as "a worthless Judas goat with no moral compass."

"I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago," he said, "and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next president of the United States."

The muppets' take from Manhattan is improving, but still no sign of a full-on gonzo columnist to sketch out the horrorshow like Hunter, although Maureen Dowd does her best:

"After 9/11, Mr. Cheney swirled his big black cape and hunkered down in his undisclosed dungeon, reading books about smallpox and plague and worst-case terrorist scenarios. His ghoulish imagination ran wild, and he dragged the untested president and jittery country into his house of horrors, painting a gory picture of how Iraq could let fearsome munitions fall into the hands of evildoers."

Back in Blighty the prospects look bleaker still, if the Guardian's Michael White means what he says about mean-spirited satirists. Gutrot decided to investigate:

Dear Mr. White,

Your brief article about cartoonists in today's Guardian confused me. On the one hand, cartoonists are "clever and funny"; on the other "they are, most of them, curmugeonly (sic) anarchists with the political sophistication of a football-mad 12-year-old".

Moreover, "what is striking about them ... is how much they seek to portray our prime minister as a conman, Bush poodle, victim or shabby opportunist."

Perhaps you could clear up my confusion by explaining to me whether or not you agree with this depiction. It would appear that you feel it lacks a certain nuance, yet your story implies that this is somehow justified. Do you have an opinion, regardless of whether you are permitted to express it clearly in your newspaper?

Yours sincerely,

[gutrot]

On Oct 28, 2004, at 10:48, michael.white@guardian.co.uk wrote:

thanks for the note, sorry for any confusion. Remember, I am not a critic, but a reporter in a hurry, doing several other things in a busy day, as you can see in the paper, part of it anyway. I think it's possible to be both clever and teenage, isn't it ? Cartoonists are usually blunt instruments, how can they be otherwise ? As to my own view, yes, I am free to express it, and yes I contrast the cartoonist view of Blair as dupe/idiot/crook etc with the fact that he is actually in favour of many of the policies for which he is most criticised, Iraq, foundation hospitals, to-ups etc and that - yes - he's still PM and still ahead in the polls 6% the Guardian said this week, after 7 years in power. HOWEVER - this point is important - do you get people thinking by hammering them or the head ? Or by gently poising a point as a question they may care to ponder ?
best wishes

Forget about calling a spade a spade, or even a Bliar; it sounds like we'll just have to Grin And Blair It. Wouldn't do to mess with the Apes of Wrath, now would it?

The one-fingered victory salute

2004-10-27T23:22:00.000+01:00

Courtesy of Junior.

Musical Youth

2004-10-26T15:59:00.000+01:00

It’s official, kids. Slim Shady, the Eminem Antichrist, has spoken: "Bush is definitely not my homie." So there you have it:

Mosh against the Neoconz With Attitude:

Let me be the voice, and your strength, and your choice
Let me simplify the rhyme just to amplify the noise
Try to amplify it, times it, and multiply it
By sixteen million people, all equal at this high pitch
Maybe we can reach Al Qaeda through my speech
Let the president answer our anarchy
Strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us to thinkin' that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country - we're patronizing our heroes
Look in his eyes, it's all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out, and wiped
And replaced with his own face - mosh now or die
If I get snagged tonight, you'll know why - 'cause I told you to fight

Just like in Rolling Stone:

"The thirty-two-year-old rapper says he has registered to vote for the first time -- but stops short of endorsing a candidate. 'Whatever my decision is, I would like to see Bush out of office,' Eminem says. 'I don't wanna see my little brother get drafted -- he just turned eighteen. People think their votes don't count, but people need to get out and vote. Every motherfuckin' vote counts.'"

Aiyyo, word up. Check this out. Maybe he's been working on his Immortal Technique and overdosing on Peruvian Cocaine:

"Si, si. Let me show you a few of the other characters that are involved in this tragic comedy..."

Hip-hop on the frontline makes The Guardian's comment pages today, alerting those out of the loop to the existence of Subliminal propaganda for the Israeli right:

"Dubbed the Israeli Eminem, the former soldier's shock is not in suggesting Michael Jackson is a paedophile or swearing a great deal, it is in song titles such as Divide and Conquer or lyrics such as "the country is dangling like a cigarette in Arafat's mouth" or "to think that an olive branch symbolises peace / Sorry it doesn't live here anymore. It's been kidnapped or murdered / There was peace my friend / Handshakes, fake smile. Treaties signed in blood." Forget Eminem, this is more like hip-hop's Sharon."

Each to his own; let battle commence. The Israeli rap scene has its dissidents too, such as T.N., a wiry young fellow who spits bursts of Arabic from suburban Tel Aviv:

"My lyrics are with peace," he said in an interview. "The question is which peace. Before you reach peace, you've got to have equality. I'm with peace, but I'm against the Zionism."

Pass the dutchie on the left hand side, indeed.

But first, hail to the chief of the great soundsystem in the sky, which will henceforth forever play Teenage Kicks at the wrong speed in tribute to John Peel, who died today after turning on so many to tuning in to alternative sounds. Maximum respect and the rest in peace.

The Short strawman

2004-10-26T14:23:00.000+01:00

On Oct 26, 2004, at 13:28, Clare Short's office wrote:

Dear [gutrot],

Thank you for your message. I believe as I have said that the House of Commons should force Blair to stand down because he misled Parliament but as yet it has no wish to do so.

We do not need anything as complicated as impeachment, a no confidence motion would do.

Yours sincerely,
Clare Short

From the office of
The Rt Hon Clare Short MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Unto which:

Dear Ms. Short,

Thank you for your reply. Since you argue that Parliament has "no wish" to force Blair to stand down, how do you envisage that he might be held to account?

As I understand it, a no-confidence motion would target the government, rather than the individual hiding behind a facade of collective responsibility, which, according to the extract from your book published yesterday ("At the court of King Tony", The Independent, 25 October, 2004), belies the truth of how this government functions in practice.

Impeachment is therefore, as far as I can determine, the only viable means of holding a debate of no confidence in the Prime Minister himself. Under what circumstances would you be prepared to lend this campaign your support?

Best wishes,

To say nothing of the fact that:

"A no confidence motion is only available to the leader of the opposition. Impeachment is the only way to get a debate on the PM's conduct."

The showmanship must go on...

Don't mess with Texas Tony

2004-10-25T17:51:00.000+01:00

The chancer who staked Britain's national security on no-limits Texas hold 'em in Iraq continues his game of double or quits with the truth.

Given what we know beyond reasonable doubt about his high crimes and misdemeanours, it is staggering to note the lengths to which sympathetic columnists will go to avoid facing the full force of these facts.

The new trend is to rubbish the impeachment campaign because it won't amount to anything, as if it might somehow attract supporters without publicity. Instead we're treated to tributes; peering through the glory hole, a roving eye caught Peter Preston with his pants down:

Posted by Philip Challinor on October 25, 2004, 1:37 am

Dear Mr Preston

I find it remarkable that, in the face of more than 13,000 civilian casualties (according to the probably conservative estimate of www.iraqbodycount.net) and the admission by the UN Secretary General that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, you can expend a 700-word column on Tony Blair's career prospects and the pernicious whimsy of the British public.

I find it remarkably ironic that you should ask, regarding the kidnappers' video recordings of their victims, "Is it the job of newspapers and TV to be used for such sickening spin?" The sickening spin of the Bush/Blair camp, it appears, is so far beyond question that you can dismiss Blair's manipulation of evidence over the weapons of mass nonexistence by invoking public stupidity (quote: "Anger about his "lies" over WMD won't go away, even though much of it wallows far too simplistically in a past open to far too much interpretation") and shrug off demands for the end of an illegal war with the philosophical panache of an Arnold Schwarzenegger (quote: "we are the weak sisters he thinks may turn and quit").

Hostility toward Bush plans and Bush tactics has become "almost a way of British political life" because Bush plans and Bush tactics are illegal, destructive and dangerous. Like "al-Zarqawi and his chums", but on a rather greater scale, Bush and his cronies kill people. Blair helps them. Your claim that "Blair reaps the full harvest there" is rather strange in view of the fact that, as you yourself admit, his resignation "still seems only a remote possibility".

Even stranger is your implication that "those of us who've been against Iraqi intervention from the start" should abandon the idea of removing Blair because some groups in Iraq take hostages. Those of us who are against Iraqi intervention should now be against the occupation. If we are against the occupation, we should want it to end. Blair will not end it because Blair does not admit that it is wrong, thus ensuring that we are indeed "all foreign hostages" to the will of the United States. Therefore one of the more effective ways of hastening the end of the occupation might be to remove Blair from office.

Yours sincerely

Philip Challinor

When challenged as to why he objected to a ritual debagging, for democracy's sake if nothing else, another "left-leaning" columnist commented:

"Re: impeaching Blair - no, i don't think it's a good idea, if I'm honest, six months before an election. Practical result? Prime Minister Howard..."

Sounds like he's been reading Anatole Kaletsky's scaremongering in The Times:

"If the middle class decides that the Government has turned against them, it will not just mean the end of Mr Blair and his new Labour project. It will mean a US-style minimalist government and the end of every last vestige of a welfare state."

Hardly likely that the longstanding Blairite project of aping Conservative policies would fall with its mentor when New Lubyanka has already preened a new generation of ideologues to bolster its ranks in the next Parliament. Still, the clairvoyant vicar has spoken: this baby's not for turning off the idea of being as popular as Maggie Thatcher, who also won three successive elections despite alienating a majority of the population. Let's check the numbers:

Posted by walter on October 24, 2004, 1:48 am

A month ago I "recommended" to a betting friend an enterprising treble:

US election, Democrats 2/1
Brown to lead Labour at election (about 3/1 I think)
LibDems to win next general election (66/1, usually retails at 500/1 for the mugs)

The basis was that if Iraq rumbles on and if Blair falls as a result there must be a chance that the LibDems, striking the final Iraq-based blows, could just step over both Labour and the in-a-mess Tories on the same issues.

Interestingly, since Blair's assertion that he will lead into the next election and up to the next one, an assertion that worried his party no end, the "book" on who will lead the next election has vanished to be replaced with "When Will Blair Be Replaced" where 2004 or 2005 combined is 7/2 (eh?) and the favourite is ... 2006 at 6/4.

In other words the bookies took his words as gospel, like it was up to him. Must be right, then.

The impeachment campaign puts it all into context:

Dear supporter,

This week there is a buzz of activity at Westminster, but not much in the news. Labour MPs have been told that they will be kicked out of the party if they sign anything that even mentions impeachment. In contrast nothing happened to the dozens who wrote to Kofi Annan accusing the entire government of war crimes. Consequently, it appears that Downing Street is treating the impeachment campaign as a serious challenge to Blair. As you might expect many Labour MPs have indicated that they will give support at the right moment - and it is up to us to create that opportunity.

The drafting team of MPs are still hard at work drawing up an impeachment motion, and as soon as we can, we will get that to you.

In the meantime, keep up the pressure in the specific ways we have outlined in our previous emails, and if you can, please send us some cash and get your friends to! Many thanks to all those who have contributed so far.

Keep the postcards and emails going to your MPs.

Yours,

Dan Plesch

Everything's falling into place; all that's missing is the media support. The Independent's serialisation of Clare Short's new book studiously skirted the impeachment question, despite laying out the basic case against the Prime Minister. Ms. Short is not generally given to reticence these days, so gutrot decided to ask what was holding her back from joining the dots:

"Date: October 25, 2004 12:31:45 BST
To: shortc@parliament.uk

Dear Ms. Short,

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of proceedings in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; the extracts from your book published in The Independent have made for fascinating reading.

The passage cited in Saturday's story ("Lies and consequences: Clare Short accuses Blair of misleading Britain over case for war") concluded as follows:

"The question we must all address is whether it is acceptable for the Prime Minister to deceive us in the making of war and the taking and sacrificing of human life because he personally believed it was the right thing to do. Do we want to live under a constitutional system that allows decisions to be made in this highly personalised way?"

In the absence of any other concerted effort to hold the Prime Minister to account, there remains the ultimate sanction of impeachment and a motion to debate this is currently being drafted, as I'm sure you are aware.

Commenting on the report which lays out the case for impeachment, its co-author, Dan Plesch, an Honourary Fellow of Birkbeck College at the University of London, said:

“It is unheard for a minister to knowingly deceive Parliament and the public and to refuse to resign. Beverley Hughes and Peter Mandelson were forced to resign for misleading Parliament. Can the Prime Minister honestly say that his actions were less serious than those of Ms Hughes and Mr Mandelson?

“Blair seriously misled and deceived the public over Iraq and there can be no greater offence for a Prime Minister. Impeachment is the only way to ensure that Tony Blair doesn't get away with this.”

Given that you concede that Blair knowingly deceived and that failure to hold him to account raises disturbing constitutional questions, can I conclude that you support the campaign for the Prime Minister's impeachment?"

Shh! We don't talk about that sort of thing. But it's quite alright to muse, as Short does today when recollecting her early days in power, that:

"[Blair] wished me luck and said he thought I could be a very good minister if I was able to come to terms with questions of expediency that I would have to face. I have occasionally pondered since what he had in mind, and wish I had asked him."

Reminds me of conversations with a newsdesk looking for excuses to kill a "controversial" story: even if it stinks, don't rock the boat.

The Moral Maze

2004-10-24T15:49:00.001+01:00

On the psychotracist's couch with gutrot, session III

Mess with the bullshit and get the horns.

The orgy of Schadenfreude that greeted Bill O'Reilly's sexual harrassment suit, much as it did Rush Limbaugh's addiction to hillbilly heroin, gives Frank Rich cause to give thanks for his home in the three-ring circus that is modern America; it also reveals a calamity-in-waiting:

"Sooner or later this untenable level of hypocrisy is going to lead to a civil war within the Republican Party."

Stroking his chin for the answer, Rich's New York Times colleague Nicholas Kristof makes a characteristically earnest attempt to engage with the pseudo-religiosity of the unreality-based presidency on its own terms, concluding:

"So, if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?"

The epitome of liberal confusion, Kristof appears to have shot off on a tangent and missed the point entirely: we're talking about psychos, not common-or-garden religious nutjobs, as Xmphora recognises:

"That is exactly how psychopaths think and act. 'Reality' is as much a quibble to them as is morality. Strong people do what they want, and weak people just get to watch. The unfortunate thing is that the United States is powerful enough now that it can act without paying any attention to the opinions of anybody else, or even to the apparent realities which would normally constrain it."

Reflecting on how to reverse this alarming trend, Alexander Cockburn argues that the Democrats have lost their way so badly that they've committed themselves to carry on regardless:

"And if, against most current indications, Kerry wins? He has proffered almost nothing to look forward to, aside from a pledge, which can easily be aborted by a "crisis," to leave Social Security alone. With the Congress against him, he'll be mostly hogtied domestically. On the foreign front he's eagerly hogtied himself. No more compliant serf to the imperatives of Empire and to the government of Israel than Kerry has been visible this season. A November 3 movement, to pressure Kerry if he wins, rebuild if he loses? Many on the left have argued that. But how will they know which way to march, when they started this year with all the wrong maps?"

The clarity of morality blinds another seeker, while common sense gets sidelined in cyberspace, even though the bible has a simple message for anyone tempted to preach from the lectern: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote in thy brother's eye."

While the likes of Christopher Hitchens drone on about how the rest of us have lost our moral compass, it is worth remembering that such people are moralising inaccurately without a map, as Paul Savoy notes:

"There is only one truly serious question about the morality of the war, and that is the question posed more than fifty years ago by French Nobel laureate Albert Camus, looking back on two world wars that had slaughtered more than 70 million people: When do we have the right to kill our fellow human beings or let them be killed? What is needed is a national debate in the presidential election campaign that addresses the most important moral issue of our time."

Fat chance. Instead we've watched the Bush Administration rip up its own road-map for peace in the Middle East, thereby uniting the occupations of Palestine and Iraq in the minds of 1.2 billion Muslims. This would amount to a spectacular own goal were it not for the lashings of imperial hubris guiding the decision makers of both the U.S. and Israel, the useful tool which now appears to wag the dog in Washington, although this is officially a non-topic:

"Before the war, Bush connected nonexistent dots between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Now he and his neoconservative brain trust are mapping the Iraq conflict onto the Likud Party agenda in Palestine. This time, however, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - and one that will have devastating repercussions for U.S. interests in both Iraq and the entire Arab world."

What drives this fool's crusade? As usual, a flawed and fraudulent misreading of history and its implications for the present, as Anatol Lieven observes in his new book, "America: Right or Wrong".

"Lieven's provocative final chapter argues that much of U.S. support for Israel is rooted not in the "civic creed" (e.g., support for a fellow liberal democracy) but in a nationalism that sees the Israelis as heroic cowboys and the Palestinians as savages who must be driven from their land, as Jackson did the Cherokees. Throughout, Lieven takes to task the American liberal intelligentsia for abandoning universalist principles in favor of ethnic chauvinism and nationalist fervor."

This does not go down well, even though Lieven is at pains to point out that red-rag radicalism is not his bag:

"I have never opposed the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip as such. Like so many people – Israeli, American and European, Jewish and non–Jewish – what I oppose is the use of that occupation to confiscate Palestinian land and plant Jewish settlers. Legally, this is contrary to international law as presently recognised. Morally, it recalls the dark days of previous imperial settlements, and is linked to religious beliefs which make any settlement, negotiation or even discussion of this issue much more difficult. Practically, the settlements have played an absolutely disastrous role in undermining the Oslo peace process and in inflaming Palestinian radicalism."

This is the ugly truth: the occupation is really a process of colonisation and two wrongs do not make a right, no matter what the Likud would have us believe, whether in relation to the present, the days of the British Mandate or the catastrophic ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, which enshrined the current cycle of injustice:

"While the expulsions of 1948 may have been necessary for Israel’s survival, the lies which they have generated over the succeeding generations, and which continue to this day, have been extremely dangerous for both Israel and the US. It would have been far better if Israel, and partisans of Israel in the US, had – like David Ben Gurion in private - accepted the truth of what happened in 1948, and then used it as the basis for thinking seriously about compensation and laying the foundations for future peace. Instead, the pro-Israel camp committed itself to an interlocking set of moral and historical falsehoods.

"Over time, the intellectual consequences of these positions have spread like a forest of aquatic weeds until they have entangled and choked a significant part of the US national debate concerning relations not only with the Muslim world but with the outside world in general, and have thereby fed the worst strains of American nationalism."

Some argue, with considerable justification, that Zionism has proved to be a consistently racist ideology, although saying as much can cost you your job. But the right to self-determination need not carry that baggage, as the editor of a collection of Jewish writings on the subject attests:

"Jewish critics of Zionism and Israel have been treated by the Jewish establishment as, at best, innocent oddballs, naïve about the ever-present danger of another Holocaust, and too soft to inflict the brutalities necessary for the preservation of "Jewish democracy" in the Arab world - a "tough neighborhood," as Thomas Friedman constantly reminds us. At worst, such critics have stood accused of being irresponsible, crazy and "self-hating," if not downright disloyal.

"I prefer to see them, however, as heirs to a prophetic Jewish tradition of moral criticism, and to the secular, cosmopolitan ideals of the Enlightenment, grounded in a commitment to human equality and solidarity. By opposing the injustices committed in their name, they have shown that there is another way of honoring the memory of Jews who perished in the pogroms and concentration camps of Europe, and that a concern for the fate of the Jews need not come at the expense of the Palestinian people."

So where do we go from here? Should there be one state or two? How to rein in the new Stern Gang of settlers who would condemn the Palestinians to bantustans at best and Jordan at worst, even if the recent silence of the suicide bombers were to continue for the foreseeable future? How impossible is peace when a man like Ariel Sharon gets death threats for being too moderate?

The marginalised voices of non-violent protestors are struggling to be heard; exhortations across the apartheid barrier for solidarity stir deep misgivings, particularly when they come from an outspoken Rabbi:

"[Rabbi] Lerner argues that it is not fair to ask an oppressed group to take on the burden of convincing the oppressor that the oppressed continue to see the oppressors as human beings deserving of respect and deserving to not be subjected to the same indignities that they have visited on the oppressed. Not fair. But, it is smart. And it is one of the few ways that one can imagine from the vantage point of US and global politics in 2004 how the Palestinian people are ever going to get out from under the boot of Israeli occupation with its attendant forms of oppression."

Perhaps. To combat the injustice in which they appear to be trapped, Palestinians are certainly casting around for a new strategy. Even their sympathisers in the Western media consistently misrepresent reality; so sophisticated is the wall of propaganda they face from Israel, whose nuclear arsenal makes a mockery of the suggestion it could somehow be driven into the sea. For all the outrage about suicide bombings, Israelis have killed Palestinians at a rate of three to one over the past four years of the current intifada and Israeli brutality is rarely exposed with the same vigour that attends coverage of a bus bombing.

Has the well been so poisoned in the Middle East that future generations are condemned to suffer because of our inability to learn from the horrors of the past? It is hard to escape this conclusion, when so many appeals for help fall on deaf ears. The Israeli Foreign Ministry appears to be worried that the tide is turning, although they may just be flying a kite; don't expect to see sanctions slapped on the apartheid state any time soon. For now, it looks as unlikely as the prospect of unravelling the oxymoron of humanitarian intervention by dispatching 200,000 blue helmets to the West Bank.

Yet somehow something must be done. For journalists, the place to start is to say "not in my name" and certainly not under my byline. And stick to it.

Otherwise you're just another pawn on the grand chessboard of the Great War for Civilisation.

That's infotainment

2004-10-23T22:22:00.000+01:00

What's inside the onion?

U.S. finishes a "strong second" in Iraq war

BAGHDAD - After 19 months of struggle in Iraq, U.S. military officials conceded a loss to Iraqi insurgents Monday, but said America can be proud of finishing "a very strong second."

"We went out there, gave it our all, and fought a really good fight," said Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "America's got nothing to be ashamed of. We outperformed Great Britain, Poland, and a lot of the other top-notch nations, but Iraq just wouldn't stay down for the count. It may have come down to them simply wanting it more."

American tanks and infantry surged out to an impressive early lead in March 2003, scoring major points by capturing Baghdad early in the faceoff. The stage seemed set for a second American victory in as many clashes with Iraq, with commentators and generals alike declaring the contest all but decided with the fall of Tikrit in April 2003.

"In spite of jumping out to an early lead and having the better-trained, better-equipped team, I'm afraid we still came up short in the end," Casey said. "Sometimes, the underdog just pulls one out on you. But there's no reason for the guys who were out in the field to feel any shame over this one. They played through pain and injury and never questioned the strategy, even when we started losing ground."

"The troops were great out there," Casey continued. "It's not their fault the guys with the clipboards just couldn't put this one away."

Casey said that, although the U.S. military did not win, it did set records for kills, yardage gained, palaces overrun, defensive stops, and military bases stolen.

Now they tell us...

2004-10-23T20:47:00.000+01:00

Every sicko frantic hack deserves shooting with a candid camera. Unfortunately, there is an unwritten rule not to rat on the rimming ranks of your illustrious peers, except over drinks.

But once in a while some particularly twisted statesman-cum-war-criminal such as Henry Kissinger decides to call their bluff and reveal that the terriers in the hackpack are all bark and no bite:

"In thousands of telephone conversations between President Nixon's controversial foreign policy adviser and the journalists meant to cast an objective look at his actions, there emerges a litany of press sycophancy that would regularly win Private Eye's Order of the Brown Nose."

Just don't expect to read about Judith Miller in the same article. That's only news once it's too late, you see. Very important that. It simply wouldn't do to assert the primacy of reality among a faith-based community:

"Reporters assumed that the praise they lavished on Dr Kissinger, who held the unprecedentedly powerful dual roles of Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, would remain private.

"Instead, he got a secretary to listen in and take down every word, leaving many of those journalists, now in the autumn of their years, slightly crestfallen and sheepish yesterday when they were contacted by The New York Times.

"Just after President Ford had dismissed Dr Kissinger as his National Security Adviser in 1975, Marvin Kalb, a CBS correspondent, called to say: 'The only reason for this call was to tell you that despite all appearances to the contrary in this city you still have some friends.'

"Dr Kissinger replied: 'I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that.'

"A year later, in the last days of Dr Kissinger's White House tenure, Ted Koppel, then the diplomatic correspondent for ABC News, told him: 'It has been an extraordinary three years for me, and I have enjoyed it immensely. You are an intriguing man, and if I had a teacher like you earlier I might not have been so cynical.'

"Dr Kissinger replied: 'You have been a good friend.' Mr Koppel ended the conversation by saying: 'We are lucky to have had you.'"

Self-abuse that's fit to print.

Cognitive dissonance

2004-10-22T19:52:00.001+01:00

On the psychotracist's couch with gutrot, session II

"We must raise journalism's game," urged John Lloyd at today's Reuters memorial lecture. "Serious political journalism, whatever its opinions, should be independent":

"Lloyd, whose book What the Media Are Doing To Our Politics says journalists are responsible for the public cynicism about the political scene, said Britain's media should take its cue from the US where a strong relationship with universities provided an "intellectual rigour" lacking in the British press."

What? Take our cues from the land of Democracy Inaction? The rigour does not extend to revealing abuses of power unless the mood music's right. What Lloyd means to say is simple: We must expose the truth; we must be independent; we mustn't offend anyone important unless quoting somebody else important. Er...

So the sliding scale of importance is the greasy pole of power. And they don't like it up 'em, do they Mr. Mainwaring?

How confusing. Unless he meant Paul Krugman, who at least has the guts to speak of the memory hole rather than backslapping his elitist chums at the New York Times:

"We must not repeat the mistake of 2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support."

In denial

2004-10-22T16:51:00.000+01:00

On the psychotracist's couch with gutrot, session I

The truth will out somehow, and it often ain't pretty. This month's Harper's has issues with the official account of September 11, 2001, despite its recent nomination for a major non-fiction award:

"The ideal readers of the 9/11 Commission Report are those who resemble the Commission itself in believing that a strong inclination to trust the word of highly placed others is evidence of personal moral distinction."

Right on.

"There's little mystery about why the Commission is tongue-tied. It can't call a liar a liar."

And I was like, no way dude.

"What the Commissioners had to supply amounted to an alibi, both for the President and for themselves."

Dr. Djukanovic's diagnosis:

"Their motivations appear to be the promotion of themselves and whomever they can speak for to further this goal. This requires an acute addiction to the mindset of the powerful, which one internalizes when joining their ranks, the better to be able to influence them when it comes to employment prospects.

"After a few years of thinking like this, it becomes a no-brainer. Whether they believe what they say or not is almost irrelevant; they believe above all else in the importance of believing in the national myths which their egos pretend to serve. Immediate sedation required."

Mindful of the coverup commissions on this side of the pond, Britain's Green Party concurs.

"Tony Blair has committed the gravest error that a Prime Minister can. And so if he won't resign, then he must be impeached.

"Because if this war is allowed to pass with impunity, the consequences will be enormous and far-reaching - not just for Britain, but for the world: Pre-emptive wars will be deemed acceptable, even against countries that pose no risk. International law will have become irrelevant and meaningless, to be broken by powerful states at will.

"And in Britain, a precedent will have been established. From now on, a prime minister will be able to mislead Parliament and the public on the gravest matter - and pay no price."

Goodness gracious me, a plain-speaking politician. Although the words sound familiar, except for the first paragraph, which was missing from the original.

Does Jonathan Freedland moonlight as a Green Party speechwriter to vent his spleen, or is this a textbook example of the boundaries of the expressible among the Guardians of our liberal thought police? This far but no further and all that. We'll let a little bit through but it just wouldn't do to spell it out day in, day out. Quoth the Greens:

"There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no serious or current threat to Britain. And establishing this truth has taken a bloody, illegal, unnecessary and immoral war in which over 20,000 people have already died in Iraq, with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands have been injured.

"Many people have focused on demanding an apology from Mr. Blair. I don't think we want his apology - who would believe him if he gave it anyway? An apology is nowhere near enough. What the Greens are demanding is his immediate and unconditional resignation."

Don't expect to read that on the front page of The Guardian or The Independent any time soon. What's up with the circular thought processes? Today's Guardian comment pages feature the revelation that Bliar's Britain is goose-stepping towards an elective dictatorship:

"If a collective cabinet system no longer functions well, and parliament is docile or impotent, we may be nearer to "elective dictatorship" than when Lord Hailsham coined the phrase a quarter of a century ago. Perhaps the country is content that the media should be the prime constraint upon highly centralised power."

What a terrifying prospect. Might the penny be starting to drop at last? Or must we, the people, make do with Michael Quinlan's hand-wringing while we await a knight in shining armour to resurrect the round table? I thought the pen-chewing paper-pushers were supposed to be mightier than the sword. Hahaha.

What more do journalists want? The establishment lackey who gave Tony and his chief spook a clean bill of health is happy to go on record about what a farce it all was:

"The proper place where governments should survive or fall is in Parliament or in the electorate. It would have been a heavy responsibility and I think one that it would have been improper for us to say we think the Government should resign on this matter."

The banality of evil jobsworths strikes again. Is there some kind of unwritten rule against speaking out? Are journalists truly doomed to be mouthpieces for officialdom? Fear of the unknown must really be crippling. You only live once, so best play it safe, eh? Stick to plastic chicks with hicks:

"Go back to bed Britannia, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed Britannia, your goverment is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed Britannia, here is American Gladiators, here is 256KB channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards fuck their banging skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go Britannia - you are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"

Land of hope and glory? Yo, ho, ho and a throttle from Rummy.

Crystalline balls

2004-10-22T14:17:00.000+01:00

Never mind the 20:20 hindsight, check out the 2020 foresight of the bludgeoning Curmudgeon. All the news that will be news, reproduced in full without permission:

Futures traders wishing to profit unfairly from the revelations contained herein are invited to apply to the reporter with appropriate incentives

The former Prime Minister, Lord Blair of Belmarsh, today paid a heartfelt tribute to his valued colleague-in-arms, George W Bush, who died on Monday after six years as President of the United States and thirteen years as Emergency Commander-in-Chief under the Homeland Constitution. Speaking from his private bunker, Lord Blair referred to Mr Bush as "a valued colleague-in-arms" who deserved his "heartfelt tribute".

With the oil reserves in the Middle East beginning to sputter, the markets were volatile today, settling down towards evening with the Prime Minister's announcement that restrictions on air traffic over Britain will be re-downrevised again later this year to allow up to three times more commercial flights. A sixth London airport will be built to help accommodate the extra traffic, resulting in the creation of twelve thousand new jobs for Cambodian refugees under the Cheaper Compassion Act.

The leader of the opposition, Boris Johnson, criticised the plan, claiming that the environmental impact of the new airport could be detrimental to the countryside. "I trust the Government's contractors will ensure that the Cambodians are properly screened for cleanliness," he said. The Prime Minister said that all workers permitted to benefit from the Cheaper Compassion Act were rigorously trained in enviro-scrupulosity, and that further Government interference in contractors' practices would be an unacceptable violation of free market principles.

The BBC has apologised to Israel for anti-semitic bias in its broadcasting. The use of the word "invasion" to describe Israel's pre-emptive police action against the United Arab Emirates has been sharply criticised by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as by the Knesset, the White House, the Pentagon, the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, the Eastern Democrat mayor of Baghdad, and the Home Secretary. The BBC says it has reprimanded the reporter who used the offending term and will be handing him over to Mossad if there is any repetition of the incident.

In other news, a landslide in Bangladesh has killed about ten thousand people and made half a million homeless. Aid workers said the problems were caused by a lack of topsoil. The world shortage of topsoil is especially acute in Bangladesh because of the country's inefficient environmental policies, it was stated. No Britons were hurt.

Don't spin out. Do something. Anything. Before it's too late.

Regime change begins at home

2004-10-21T21:20:00.000+01:00

It's tough choices time in Banana Republic: the suit or the brute? Thanks to the wonders of off-balance sheet accounting in Freedom Inc., your vote don't mean shit unless you live in Florida or Ohio.

To guard against the confusion of last time around, when pregnant chads hit the headlines instead of leck-shun fraahd, the Sunshine State has started vote-rigging early. Which means that democracy's last stand will be staged in the beautifully named Buckeye State, although some nostalgia buffs refuse to rule out Pennsylvania.

Worrying about the implications of another electile dysfunction, concerned liberals at The Guardian decided to wade into the Anyone But Bush campaign with the slogan: America, let us love you again. The jury is still out:

"A quick Google search as I write this produces the Washington Post wondering, "Can the Brits swing Ohio?", and the New York Times reporting, in unusually demotic voice, "British Two Cents Draws, in Sum, a Two-Word Reply: Butt Out". Elsewhere, detailing the robust response to our campaign, the Arab News in Saudi Arabia asks gravely: "Can the 'special' US-UK relationship survive?"."

Others were more forthright:

"Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two shits what Europeans think of us? Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies ... I don't give a rat's ass if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don't. If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full of shitty food and yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels and Berlin, dipshit. Oh, yeah - and brush your goddamned teeth, you filthy animals.
Wading River, NY"

At last, a grain of truth about the special relationship. Tempting as it is to remind such people of the American habit of meddling with the electoral processes and fundamental structures of other countries, there are more immediate issues to attend to. Back to the dilemma:

"Naturally, the main thing we're thinking about these days is the election. Just as naturally, we're militantly anti-Bush. But actually, I'm not entirely all that certain that a Kerry win would be the best thing in the long run. Iraq is a mess (-o-potamia), and I don't have any real hope that it's going to magically "get better" in some way or another... So maybe this means I'm mildly pro-Bush (even though I'll vote for Kerry). Hell, I don't know. I hate this shit."

Stumbling out of the fog of war to reveal some basic truths, The New York Times quoted an adviser to the chimp, although not his brain, as saying the Bush Administration was officially no longer part of the "reality-based community". For this, and other transgressions, the paper which brought you the invasion of Iraq has fallen out of favour with the apes of wrath.

So what about the October surprise? I'm still waiting for mine, but it looks like it won't be coming from the Guardian, if the intelligence behind Operation Clark County is any guide:

"Guardian readers are a reassuringly engaged, resourceful and largely charming bunch; parts of America have become so isolationist that even the idea of individuals receiving letters from foreigners is enough to give politicians the collywobbles and, perhaps, in the digital age little acorns can turn into big trees very, very quickly."

Heart-warming stuff no doubt, although Guardian journalists tend to be alarmingly disengaged, remorseless and largely preoccupied with what people might think, which is possibly why Ian Katz overlooks the elephant on his lawn:

Could another four years of Bush turn the tide against the madness of Tony Blair? Are there no limits to the willingness of mainstream journalists to abandon their duty to hold the powerful to account? It would appear not, judging by Johann Hari's sneering in yesterday's Independent, which overlooked the fact that the motion to impeach Tony Blair is being drawn up by a senior Tory barrister, not an anarchist mob.

So what's holding back the commissars of the commentariat? Simple, says a prominent impeachment campaigner: "They're too fucking chicken." In any case, it's always much easier to hurl abuse at foreigners.

Islamo-farce-ism

2004-10-20T01:16:00.000+01:00

If we are to take such people at face value, as they appear to do themselves when writing about their favourite politicians, the cheerleaders of the Cruise Missile Left - a.k.a. Liberal Hawks in Statesidespeak - believe ever so passionately in the importance of being tough on terrorism.

The causes of terrorism, to say nothing of the terrorist undertakings of Western governments, are generally the preserve of their opponents, whose critique of the recourse to bellicosity is, according to the punditocracy's jargon du jour, better known as appeasement.

As Anatol Lieven notes, the irrational exuberance of the new crusaders exposes everything you never wanted to know about Empire because you were too ashamed to ask. Like the 19th Century missionaries they resemble most closely, the "bomb 'em to save 'em" lobby are not only singing from the wrong hymn sheet; they're worshipping a false god: war.

"[T]hey represent a form of liberal imperialism, of a kind that characterized much of the liberal scene in America and Europe a century ago. In the meantime, however, the historical circumstances have changed utterly. The liberal imperialists were explicitly antidemocratic. They believed that, at best, it would take generations of Western authoritarian rule before the "lesser breeds" they conquered could develop a capacity for constitutional self-government. They would have regarded as utterly ludicrous the idea that rapid "freedom and democracy" could be introduced by Western military force."

Hysterical doomsday scenarios abound to justify the flawed logic of the "no surrender" brigades, not least in their inconsistent mischaracterisations of the intentions of Islamic fundamentalists:

"Given the threat posed by Al Qaeda and its Sunni extremist allies to virtually every state and elite in the Muslim world, and given the savage divisions between these forces, the Shiite tradition and secular Arab nationalists like the Baath, there was a cornucopia of opportunities after September 11 to seek Muslim allies in the war on terrorism. From this point of view, for the Bush Administration to have succeeded in uniting Shiite radicals, Baath die-hards and Sunni extremists in Iraq; to have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously threatening Iran and Syria; and to have alienated both Turkey and Saudi Arabia--this almost defies description. It is a kind of baroque apotheosis of geopolitical cretinism."

Writing in the Boston Review, Sadik J. Al-Azm debunks received wisdom about the clash of civilisations. Spectacular atrocities are a mark of the desperation that portends marginalisation, Al-Azm argues, for all our assumptions otherwise:

"Despite current predictions of a protracted global war between the West and the Islamic world, I believe that war is over. There may be intermittent battles in the decades to come, with many innocent victims. But the number of supporters of armed Islamism is unlikely to grow, its support throughout the Arab Muslim world will likely decline, and the opposition by other Muslim groups will surely grow. 9/11 signaled the last gasp of Islamism rather than the beginnings of its global challenge."

In short, Arab nationalism does not a terrorist make, even if he wears a beard and a headdress, although it suits the priorities of the Bush Administration, and its faithful servant in 10 Downing Street, to conflate the two.

Ignorance is indeed strength, they appear to have proved, much to the satisfaction of the Likudnik lobby seeking to cast enemies of Israel as an implacable monolith called international terrorism, with which there can of course be no negotiation. With "our values" being perverted daily, it is hardly surprising that the fog of war blinds us to the truth:

"As one literary metaphor says: If a stone falls on an egg the egg breaks, and if an egg falls on a stone the egg breaks too. From the Arab Muslim side of the divide, the West seems so powerful, so efficient, so successful, so unstoppable, that the very idea of an ultimate 'clash' is fanciful. As for the current tensions, suspicions, confrontations, and enmities that characterize the relationship of Islam to the West, they are certainly not purely affairs of the spirit, or simply clashes of religious ideas or theological interpretations, or merely matters of beliefs, values, images, and perceptions. They are the normal affairs of history, power politics, international relations, and the pursuit of vital interests."

Enter Global McJihad, the many-headed hydra of Muslims lusting for blood. Although it is clear that Osama and his cohorts holed up in Afghanistan during the 1990's, and that their example served to inspire legions of wannabes, everything else we hear about Al Qaeda in the mainstream media is at best a distortion of government propaganda.

Tonight, the BBC, whose take on terrorism would routinely be laughed off the screens of the Islamic world, will air the first part of a documentary series peeling away the layers of hype justifying the Global War on Terrorism™. In "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear", Adam Curtis advances a compelling thesis:

"In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

Balderdash, scream the war whores in the press corps, egged on by "columnist of the year" David Aaronovitch, whose latest diatribe against pure reason is singularly lacking in evidence for its hyperbole, beyond his distaste for suicide bombings. One might ask whether cluster bombs are any more humane, but that would confront the morality play churning around his internal DVD player which holds that "we" are eternally justified in our pursuit of collateral damage, while "they" in turn are out to get us, or simply ungrateful bastards. After all, we're helping. Aren't we?

In any case, the facts about Iraq do not generally much concern a man who, in April 2003, came over all funny about war fever and pronounced on the subject of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Nonexistence:

"If nothing is eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war - will never believe another thing that I am told by our government, or that of the US ever again."

No such damascene conversion has been forthcoming. Indeed, instead of demanding an end to the madness of Tony Blair, Aaronovitch prefers to cast aspersions about the sanity of Adam Curtis, lampooning his film as:

"...a one-stop conspiracy theory to stand alongside those fingering the Illuminati, the Bilderberg group and (vide the Da Vinci Code) Opus Dei."

Would that be the same sort of conspiracy that facilitated the invasion of Iraq, David? Or was that one just a colossally coincidental cock-up?

Once again, messianic fervour for "democracy" blinds the liberal hawks to the erosion of their own freedoms in the name of the contempt in which they hold the views of others. Belt up chaps; never mind the turbulence, it's all just a little bit of history repeating. Although before we waltz on through the Age of Kali, it might just be prudent to listen to Lieven:

"The missionaries, and their democratizing descendants of today, would have done better to remember a certain Christian adage about the man who dines with the devil needing a long spoon. The liberal hawks in particular have failed to bring such a spoon to their relationship with the policies of the Bush Administration and the neoconservatives, and in consequence they are in the process of becoming dinner themselves. At present, the liberal hawks' legs are still sticking out of the neoconservatives' collective mouth, kicking faintly, but in a few years, at this rate, only a pathetic, muffled squeaking will remain, protesting that if only they had been in charge, all the disasters of the coming years would not have happened."

Read Tony's lips - he does try ever so hard you know.

Their Satanic Majesties request...

2004-10-19T15:38:00.002+01:00

An audience with Jon Stewart, the closest thing to a deity in the pantheon of graven images spewing forth from the bowels of unreality TV. Our hero kneels prostrated before them, benighted for services to the Fifth Column in the Fourth Estate when caught in the Crossfire on CNN.

This clip is the epitome of must-watch for anyone who flirts with the dark arts of advertorial infotainment. Check how dear Jon rips a new one for Tucker Carlson, a pencil-sucking dweeb straight outta central casting, and Paul Begala, the archetypal stressed-out liberal who lost his third way:

STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?

[...]

STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one. The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.

What an indictment of the backslapping spinelessness propping up the American media establishment: the most incisive news anchor in the U.S. is a comedian. While the jokers in the hackpack hall of shame roll out their all-star red carpet for yet another parade of the Emperor's new clothes, Stewart calls a spade a spade, which is rarely a passport to popularity:

CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities?

STEWART: If I think they are.

CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.

STEWART: I know. And you won't.

A fraudulent slip from frère Tucker, no doubt, but therein lies the rub 'n' tug: heavyweight journalists like nothing better than to wine and dine the great and the good in search of a reacharound reward, whether as a scoop or an award.

Sometimes you hit the jackpot, like CNN's leading lady, Christiane Amanpour, whose husband span her the bombing of Serbia for Bill Clinton before enlisting himself in John Kerry's campaign to serve - whatever it is he thinks he serves.

Lest we forget, the un-Americans among us will recognise that it's really no less painful on the pillow-biting end of the special relationship here in Blighty. The valiant vulgarians of our own democracy are just as addicted to the uncommon nonsense littering public discourse.

As Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor, observed when taking up his new job as court stenographer to his family friends in number 10, his "organs of opinion were formally removed", leaving him defenceless against the onslaught of flak from his most trusted sources.

Bollocks. His neurochemistry is clearly undergoing a violent reaction to poststructuralism. Never mind the truth that's all relative, why waste your time on deconstruction in the first place? Well, it simply wouldn't do, now would it. I mean come on; we're supposed to be objective and all that. Which of course means reporting faithfully what we believe our dear leaders believe and, even better, what we think they feel, before running to the other corner of the pro-wrestling ring for some more comedy soundbites from the opposition. To hell with what they do, or even what they don't say.

After all, familiarity breeds contempt for reason, and above all the reasons behind the rhetoric. But without a named quote, it's not a story, you see. And it's seriously unsexy unless someone's emoting, which is, of course, great television, as the newspapers have discovered. Me, me, me; columnists never had it so good, as the Observer's Andrew Rawnsley obviously appreciated while sucking his nibs before spawning this latest fig-leaf for Tony Blair, who clearly really means it, whatever that means:

"An apology would not assuage the opponents of the war. They would not reward self-abasement by the Prime Minister with praise for his honesty. They would seize on it as the final admission from the man himself that he took Britain into a terribly misjudged conflict on a false prospectus. They would be refuelled in their demands for his head."

Heaven forbid. I mean, let's face it, who are journalists to enforce democratic accountability? Rawnsley the war pimp gives not a thought to international law, nor the suffering inflicted on tens of thousands of dead natives and their families. No, what matters is cheerleading the greater good to be served by his partisan pals. Or he'll be blackballed from all the party cocktail parties, and then we'd all be worse off. Or something. In the words of one irate writer of letters to the editor:

"Surely in a democracy the interest of the people and the country should come +before+ the interest of the prime minister? The prime minister is supposed to be the servant of the people. So why are you arguing for what is in +his+ interest? Shouldn't you argue for what is in the interest of the people?" (Email to Andrew Rawnsley, 17 October, 2004)

Surely shome mishtake. That would be biased, of course, which was why The Observer's fellow Guardian of the Ministries of Truth and Stealth continued to pump it out on Monday morning, seemingly oblivious to what these words betrayed about the reporting standards of Richard Norton-Taylor, Jamie Wilson and Patrick Wintour:

"In Falluja yesterday US troops continued their siege of the rebel stronghold in an effort to keep suspected militants from fleeing before the start of a long expected full-scale ground offensive."

Mindreaders to a man, they appear to have a hotline to the Pentagon pentagram, or certainly an intuitive sense of how it thinks, or at the very least a clear idea of how they think it thinks about how to justify its actions. How clever. Obviously, the alternative explanations for another display of shock and awe were simply too implausible to contemplate:

Posted by walter on October 18, 2004, 6:37 pm

REASONS FOR STRAIGHTFORWARD USES OF EXCESSIVE FORCE
1) to crush resistance
2) to limit US casualties at whatever Iraqi cost
3) to force Iraqis to accept US postwar plans
4) to destroy Iraq's infrastructure
5) to administer collective punishment
6) to restrict and intimidate independent reporting

POSSIBLE TACTICAL USES OF EXCESSIVE FORCE
1) to bring about a situation of apparent chaos
2) to provide cover of war emergency to implement plans
3) to suspend accountability
4) to provoke violent or terrorist responses
5) to portray all resistance as terrorism
6) to legitimize further tactical use of violence
7) to ensure the reliance of the interim government on US support
8) to increase the political bargaining power of reconstruction
9) to give the invasion apparent legitimacy under the War on Terror
10) to extend the WOT
11) to restrict future democratic opposition
12) to deflect future democratic opposition along a militant direction or
drive it out of the democratic picture
13) to justify increased militarisation and military spending

Hold the front page! Coming soon to a scandal sheet near you, the apocryphal arse-cover of objective journalism: if it bleeds it leads, but we're heavily in denial so read it and weep. In other words, time to dust off the trusty refrain:

PM REFUTES CRITICS WITH BARNSTORMING BARRAGE OF BULLSHIT

Or words to that effect.

Update on unfrocking the vicar

2004-10-18T22:02:00.004+01:00

Impeach Blair, you say?

I say, did someone just fart in church through their private eye? This week's parish news has more:

THE VICAR OF ST. ALBION:

"I'd like to end with an apology. I'm sorry, but I haven't got anything to apologise for! I may have been misled by other people, who told me all sorts of things that turned out not to be entirely true.

"And I'm genuinely sorry for those people, because misleading the vicar is just about the most serious offence I can think of! But am I sorry for playing such a leading role in the great crusade against the Evil One?

"'Am I fock' as father Bob might put it, in his colourful Gaelic patois!"

A friend well learned in the law, and the moral bankruptcy of the Prime Minister's serial sermonising, to say nothing of its significations to psychiatrists, offers the following opinion of The Reverend Anthony Bliar, Queer Customer:

"In my view Blair and Bush are bloody war criminals, with all the ethical and legal consequences that this implies. An apology would be totally inadequate. Would Blair accept an apology from Saddam as exoneration?

"The psychology of Blair is interesting. The dichotomy of fool or liar seems inadequate: I believe the truth is a mixture of the two. To me any faith-based epistemology, encouraging bigotry and messianic fervour, necessarily cripples intelligence.

"I don't believe that Blair is inherently stupid but his conviction-needs, operating in a compartmentalised way, are deeply and dangerously hostile to logic and data in crucial areas. As manifested, this is both a psychological and a psychiatric matter.

"Self-delusion plays an important part - but I cannot believe that this has reached such a pitch that Blair does not realise he is going beyond or against the evidence and conveying falsehoods."

According to another learned friend who saw some of the documents flying around back in the day of Attorney General Goldsmith's magical disappearing advice, many were prefaced with a general "yes, we know, but..." from the strawmen of the ministerial classes.

If everything hadn't stunk so bad at the time that one could "almost hear the collective raspberry going up around Whitehall" (John Morrison, former deputy chief of Britain's Defence Intelligence Staff), we could pretend it was all coming out of the woodwork, not that you'd even know that much from Patrick Wintour's take on freedom of information in today's Guardian:

"It says something about the longevity of the demand for open government that the first shadow home secretary to make a serious fuss over statutory rights to government information was Roy Hattersley back in the mid-80s."

Like what? That your reporting has lost its bearings? Are journalists so supine in the face of power that they need the leader of the opposition to tell them what to write?

Chin up chaps, people with quotable titles exist. Perhaps you'd like to give them a call instead of waiting for the establishment to investigate itself and pronounce itself rotten to the core. Got any ideas how to have an impact instead of wasting wordsmithery on the political hot air that stops you coming in from the cold?

"Dear impeachBlair campaign supporter,

First of all, congratulations to everyone. The idea of impeachment has now become a normal part of the language. This in itself is a sign of the country's deep unease over the Prime Minister's conduct before, during and after the Iraq war. The mere use of the word "Impeachment" after 150 years shows the severity of the constitutional crisis created by the Prime Minister's abuse of trust and refusal to "do the decent thing" and resign.

This Wednesday, the impeachBlair group announced that Douglas Hogg QC MP is leading the team of MPs drawing up the Motion of Impeachment along with Elfyn Llwyd MP, Edward Garnier QC MP and Alex Salmond MP. The intention is to maximise recruitment of MPs, and other public figures so that when the motion is put to the Commons there will be no question that it must be debated promptly. We expect that the motion will be published this autumn and put before the Commons in January. When we have the Motion of Impeachment it will be the basis of a petition, and we will let you know as soon as possible when we can start this campaign.

There is one activity we want all supporters of the campaign to undertake. We would like you to get as many people as possible to send postcards to their MP saying simply; "Impeach Blair" signed with their name and address. Add a sentence of your own if you like, focusing on the Prime Minister's misleading statements to the Commons and the Country. Buy some postcards and stamps and get people you know to send them either at work, in the pub or over coffee. MPs do notice and will respond. We are not producing a printed version as these tend to be discounted. It's vital that we get as many cards in the post now as we can. The impeachBlair MPs are working to get their colleagues to sign up to the campaign so any pressure from their constituents is essential to tip sympathetic MPs from all the parties into supporting the impeachment. This is really where your input is a huge help.

Finally, apologies, some of you may not have got an email before and we are sorry for any hiccups as we build the impeachBlair campaign. Copies of former emails will be posted on the website in the near future, at www.impeachblair.org.

Yours,

Dan Plesch"

Don't hold your breath; the papers won't have much to say about it until they think it's all over. But some people are on the pitch already, so expect more quibbling over the PM's machinations of messianic metaphor for the sake of balance.

Meanwhile our freedom is being eroded.

Chaos theory

2004-10-16T16:02:00.000+01:00

Tonight the world of a small terraced house will be subjected to the devious spin-doctoring of Raoul Djukanovic and his pseud's corner of pitch control disaster areas.

Yes, da Rebel MC be selectin' choons for da people and wreckin' das FX when they blend into the next with scratches. Heaven help the blessings playing to your heart's content while the mafia raid the party and rinse the kitchen sink from beneath your eyes:

Criminal charges over hit'n'run festival | 17:11 | B92

Belgrade police said today that they have laid criminal charges against a partner in the Echo Music company, Sasa Stamenkovic, has been charged with embezzlement.

Charges have also been laid against two of his associates, Jovica Begovic and Goran Jovicic, who are believed to have fled the country.

The company mounted the Echo Festival on Belgrade's Big War Island in summer, 2003.

Police say that the company, which was registered at a fictitious address, was closed down immediately after the festival finished. Stamenkovic was arrested at Belgrade airport, while his associates have not been located.

The company owes 22.5 million dinars (about 320,000 euros) to creditors including the Intercontinental and Yugoslavia hotels, Zepter Insurance, the Zemun Municipality, the Serbia-Montenegro Army, the Sava Centre and a number of bands.

Some might say what's the difference between the Emperor and the tyrant with a thousand faces in Belgrade, and never mind that moral equivalence nonsense. But it was way more fun any which way despite the chaos and they loved it in Bosnia, let's be frank:

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."

Cool Britannia? No thanks. Jebem vam boga!

So macho

2004-10-15T15:37:00.000+01:00

Move over Geraldo, the new Lord Flashheart of the press corps is Mark "2 Tuf 4 Torygraf" Steyn, who has the following advice for journalists afraid of losing their heads in Iraq:

"If you don't want to wind up in that situation, you need to pack heat and be prepared to resist at the point of abduction. I didn't give much thought to decapitation when I was mooching round the Sunni Triangle last year, but my one rule was that I was determined not to get into a car with any of the locals and I was willing to shoot anyone who tried to force me. If you're not, you shouldn't be there."

Just what we need - another reason to shoot up the hackpack on sight, as Robert Fisk worried in the wake of Daniel Pearl's beheading a couple of years ago:

"Can we do better? I think so. It's not that reporters in military costume - [CNN's Walt] Rodgers in his silly Marine helmet, Rivera clowning around with a gun, or even me in my gas cape a decade ago - helped to kill Daniel Pearl. He was murdered by vicious men. But we are all - dressing up in combatant's clothes or adopting the national dress of people - helping to erode the shield of neutrality and decency, which saved our lives in the past. If we don't stop now, how can we protest when next our colleagues are seized by ruthless men who claim we are spies?"

In Iraq, there are other hazards to worry about. "Friendly fire" from the U.S. military wipes out journalists as indiscriminately as attacks by forces hostile to the American occupation. These days, reporters are largely confined to barracks. If there's talk of giving them guns, how long before they're back in uniform?

Is this really the time for fondling your piece and feeling mighty hard?

Pleading the First

2004-10-14T11:56:00.000+01:00

Before free speech vanishes completely, Frank Rich spells out the threat from “increasingly craven media combines” in today’s New York Times:

"The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before," wrote William Safire last month. When an alumnus of the Nixon White House says our free press is being attacked as "never before", you listen. What alarms him now are the efforts of Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame-Robert Novak affair, to threaten reporters at The Times and Time magazine with jail if they don't reveal their sources. Given that the Times reporter in question (Judith Miller again) didn't even write an article on the subject under investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald overreaches so far that he's created a sci-fi plot twist out of Steven Spielberg's "Minority Report."

Even Xmphora is shocked by this affront to the First Amendment, and the general media disinterest:

“I never thought I'd ever write anything in support of that bitch Judith Miller, but here goes…”

Eat your heart out Spiro Agnew.

Fly me to the moon...

2004-10-13T13:40:00.000+01:00

Leavin’ on a jet plane just keeps getting cheaper. Today, Ryanair is touting trips from London to Glasgow for all of 69 pence, plus tax. How do those numbers add up?

In the long run they can’t: oil industry analysts have spotted a 50 percent price rise in the pipeline. Meanwhile, facing up to the global energy crisis remains a political taboo. Heard any governments promising to downsize their economies recently? Er…

So why is Britain planning to triple the numbers of people travelling by air – the most environmentally damaging form of transport – by 2030, while pretending to give a toss about climate change?

Beats me, but it might just have something to do with the democratic deficit being outsourced to Amalgamated Conglomerates Incorporated.

Weaponised cosmos anyone?

Who you gonna call?

2004-10-13T11:02:00.000+01:00

Our Man in Tashkent may be losing his job for telling the truth about a bogus war on terrorism.

Big Brother’s verdict on Craig Murray’s revelations? Don’t rock the boat, old boy:

“Mr Murray faced 18 disciplinary charges in July 2003 - ranging from his being drunk at work to having sex with women in his office for visas - all of which were dropped.”

Speaking out won’t do wonders for your career, or your mental health, but it’s never been more important, argues the man who leaked the documents which eroded public support for the Vietnam war:

“Technology may make it easier to tell your story, but the decision to do so will be no less difficult. The personal risks of making disclosures embarrassing to your superiors are real. If you are identified as the source, your career will be over; friendships will be lost; you may even be prosecuted. But some 140,000 Americans are risking their lives every day in Iraq. Our nation is in urgent need of comparable moral courage from its public officials.” (Daniel Ellsberg, New York Times, 28 September, 2004)

He’s certainly not alone: 11 former government employees signed his recent “Call to Patriotic Whistleblowing”, including Ray McGovern, who served the CIA for 27 years, retired USAF Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski and Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator who has exposed how her bosses closed down terrorism investigations before the attacks of 11 September, 2001.

Once you’ve decided to go public, why hold back? Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing, had this to say in an open letter to Condoleezza Rice back in April:

“The richest and most powerful people in the world pay for performance. They pay you to make the US governmental apparatus look legitimate while they use it to centralize economic and political power. That means they need liars who are better at lying than you.”

Take that, Voodoo Queen.

Whistleblowers in Britain risk prosecution for breaking the Official Secrets Act, as the translator Katharine Gun discovered when she exposed how the U.S. and UK governments bugged other U.N. Security Council members in the weeks before they invaded Iraq. But the case against her was dropped when her lawyer demanded the government publish the classified legal advice that took Britain into an illegal war. Heartened by this victory against the system, her message to public employees everywhere is simple: the truth must out.

“I am not a natural activist, I am not a political animal, I do not enjoy confrontation, and I do not delight in high-octane political debate. I did not make my disclosure about the deceitful manipulation of the UN before the invasion of Iraq began in order to garner fame or fortune. I am just a very ordinary, concerned individual who could not sit back in silence while the leaders of the UK and the US plotted about 'shock and awe', about wiping out their former ally and client Saddam Hussein.” (Katharine Gun, The Observer, 19 September, 2004)

Follow the yellow trick road

2004-10-12T18:43:00.003+01:00

In the beginning was the word and the word was lost.

I only decided to write everything down after it stopped making sense; it was already too late to ask why. The only clear question was what to do about it and nobody seemed to have the answer, perhaps because there wasn’t one.

Strip away the monomyth and all that remains is a circus at the end of the world; never mind the colonies of bats in the bowels, welcome to the American dream: the poorest county in the U.S. has staked the farm on Dubya Money's empty rhetoric.

"People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about," writes Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansas?, a journey to the heartland of something rotten in the United States of Amnesia. Why stop there, wonders the New York Review of Books:

"He might have gone further and implicated humanity in general, with its primordial fear of exile, abandonment, and death in a terrifying environment, and its corresponding submission to factitious gods and the deadly schemes of mad rulers, unvarying from before the Pharaohs to the present."

Quite. But somewhere over the rainbow lies a pot of goldie lookin' chains, while they who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness, on the rare occasions that they're nominally held to account, that is.

"The trick never ages: the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation... Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization..."

Yes, no, whatever. That’s the beauty of Utopian populism: it’s never too late to get it back and you can swallow anything if your salary depends on it. Especially when you're scared.

"For Frank, America today is a painting by Bosch, 'a panorama of madness and delusion...of sturdy blue-collar patriots reciting the Pledge while they strangle their own life chances; of small farmers proudly voting themselves off the land; of devoted family men carefully seeing to it that their children will never be able to afford college or proper health care; of working-class guys ...deliver[ing] up a landslide for a candidate whose policies will end their way of life [and] transform their region into a "rustbelt," [and] strike people like them blows from which they will never recover.'"

Steady on now, mustn't grumble; one day I might be able to afford things I don't need. Excuse me while I stick a pitchfork through my eyeballs and cut up my credit cards.