"You're the biggest mistake she ever made. That lasts forever."
I don't watch Aliens in America (1 2) much, but I've seen a few episodes and there are some occasionally funny bits. That line's pretty good.
Nothing much new, except for something under the cut regarding my friend Gort.
In the previous post, I talked about the way the management class tends to go into denial when deep structural failures start to appear in the systems they're responsible for managing. Most of us who've endured corporate life have dismal stories about this; but willful cluelessness has a long history at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as well.
--Sara Robinson
Sara Paretsky is best known for her crime novels. These mysteries go beyond Mike Hammer and Hercule Poirot not only in the complexities of the crimes committed, but also in the context Paretsky creates and the politics of the narrator and her protagonists. They are not mere stories of private eyes that solve a crime via force and intellect. Her tales actually note and include the social realities of the criminals and the crimes of the authorities and the system they uphold. As a reader who likes crime fiction of any sort except for forensics, I consider Paretsky to be one of the best in the genre. Indeed, she is right up there with Dashiell Hammett, Walter Mosely and Henning Mankell. Given her record of excellence, it was with great curiosity that I began Ms. Paretsky's latest novel, Bleeding Kansas.
--Ron Jacobs
A new Pentagon term came into use in the Bush era. With the invasion of Iraq, reporters were said to be "embedded" in U.S. military units. That term--so close in sound to "in bed with"--should have wider uses. You could, for instance, say that Americans have, since September 2001, been "embedded," largely willingly, in a new lockdown universe defined by a general acceptance of widespread acts of torture and abuse, as well as of the right to kidnap (known as "extraordinary rendition"), and the creation and expansion of an offshore Bermuda Triangle of injustice, all based on the principle that a human being is guilty unless proven (sometimes even if proven) innocent. What might originally have seemed like emergency measures in a moment of crisis is now an institutionalized way of life. Whether we like it or not, these methods increasingly define what it means to be an American. In this manner, despite the "freedom" rhetoric of the Bush administration, the phrase "the price of freedom" has been superseded by the price of what passes for "safety" and "security."
--Tom Engelhardt
The senator from Illinois has been promoted by elements in the American financial aristocracy because of his (relative to his peers) rhetorical polish, lack of connection to previous administrations, and bi-racial origins. Obama in the White House would not represent any fundamental change in the direction of US foreign or domestic policy, but he would, it is believed, put a new face on US imperialism, sorely needed after the debacle of the Bush presidency.
--Patrick Martin
Here we have a "former" CIA man, claiming to be an opponent of administration war policies, speaking as a foremost expert on bin Laden, because of his position on the "bin Laden unit." He validates the latest bin Laden videos with his expertise, without ever acknowledging facts about al Qaida and their leader--the nature of the real threat vs. the created perception, the death of bin Laden, al Qaida the database, the builders and instructors of the Pakistani/Afghani insurgent training camps. In his book Imperial Hubris, written under the penname "Anonymous," Scheuer paints a shocking portrait of camps that he claims were built by bin Laden, when, in truth, he knows that these are all CIA built facilities, including the notorious Tora Bora (where bin Laden is allegedly buried), the camps in the Swat Valley in Northwest Pakistan, the scene of ongoing confrontations and under the watchful eyes of a new American super base which is under construction near there.
--Peter Chamberlin
Was the Zapatista insurrection a success? The only answer is in the apocryphal story about the answer that Zhou En-lai is supposed to have given to the question: "What do you think of the French Revolution?" Answer: "It is too early to tell."
--Immanuel Wallerstein
Mandar obedeciendo. Or, obey those you claim to lead. Or, request to politicians, don't double-cross your supporters. Or, if politicians do indeed obey those they claim to lead, request to voters, make sure you know what your vote says. I'm having a button made with that slogan (the Zapatista one) attached to that image. I hope to wear it to the precinct caucus January 19. That is, if I have any reason to attend. The annointed one might be selected by then.
[T]he "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and ... the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's animus.
--David Neiwert
As the Democrat in the race who most fiercely and unapologetically defends her support for the attack on Iraq in 2003, Hilary Clinton's win last night in New Hampshire was paralleled on the Republican side by John McCain's victory. (In 2000 McCain beat Bush in New Hampshire, 46-30. In 2008, with 86,000 votes, he beat Romney 37-32). New Hampshire is not Iowa, where the votes are almost always interesting and the voters are genuinely of an independent disposition. In New Hampshire the two candidates most closely approving of the war and the least emblematic of change came out on top. In her victory speech Hillary Clinton said she wants "to end the war the right way." John McCain, with the same pause, said he wants "to bring them home with honor." The day before, McCain told the press in New Hampshire he thought the US would be in Iraq "for the next 100 years."
--Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (with an entirely gratuitous slander of Dennis Kucinich--who does deserve legitimate criticism)
What did Sibel Edmonds see? Probably a sophisticated contra-proliferation operation, one which attempted to put a backdoor in the Islamic bomb, allowing the Pentagon to turn it off whenever it sees fit. This would have to look like real treason, with covert high-level operatives taking real bribes and dealing with the shadiest arms dealers, all in order for Pakistan to accept what they received from the Americans as something other than a trick (a good counter-proliferation operation should look exactly like a treasonous operation). Fiddle with some parts, turn a couple of the scientists sent to train in American nuclear research facilities, and suddenly the ‘Islamic bomb’ is an ‘Islamic dud.’ The control would extend to any recipients of the same technology, including North Korea.
--Xymphora
America stopped declaring war after 1941 because it was too inefficient. War was put on an assembly-line basis. Now, senators and others briefly huddle before the Pentagon is ordered to bomb the shit out of some unfortunate people. In the process, the president is elevated temporarily to Caesar, never to be seriously questioned before the corpses are all counted. It is an unfortunate matter of style in Bush’s case that Caesar more closely resembles Garfield Goose than Augustus, so treating Bush with imperial reverence always has a certain absurdity about it, but absurdity is never allowed to get in the way of some serious destruction.
--John Chuckman
The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the USA's strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto?
--Norman Finkelstein (1 May 2006)
Nothing much new, except for something under the cut regarding my friend Gort.
In the previous post, I talked about the way the management class tends to go into denial when deep structural failures start to appear in the systems they're responsible for managing. Most of us who've endured corporate life have dismal stories about this; but willful cluelessness has a long history at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as well.
--Sara Robinson
Sara Paretsky is best known for her crime novels. These mysteries go beyond Mike Hammer and Hercule Poirot not only in the complexities of the crimes committed, but also in the context Paretsky creates and the politics of the narrator and her protagonists. They are not mere stories of private eyes that solve a crime via force and intellect. Her tales actually note and include the social realities of the criminals and the crimes of the authorities and the system they uphold. As a reader who likes crime fiction of any sort except for forensics, I consider Paretsky to be one of the best in the genre. Indeed, she is right up there with Dashiell Hammett, Walter Mosely and Henning Mankell. Given her record of excellence, it was with great curiosity that I began Ms. Paretsky's latest novel, Bleeding Kansas.
--Ron Jacobs
A new Pentagon term came into use in the Bush era. With the invasion of Iraq, reporters were said to be "embedded" in U.S. military units. That term--so close in sound to "in bed with"--should have wider uses. You could, for instance, say that Americans have, since September 2001, been "embedded," largely willingly, in a new lockdown universe defined by a general acceptance of widespread acts of torture and abuse, as well as of the right to kidnap (known as "extraordinary rendition"), and the creation and expansion of an offshore Bermuda Triangle of injustice, all based on the principle that a human being is guilty unless proven (sometimes even if proven) innocent. What might originally have seemed like emergency measures in a moment of crisis is now an institutionalized way of life. Whether we like it or not, these methods increasingly define what it means to be an American. In this manner, despite the "freedom" rhetoric of the Bush administration, the phrase "the price of freedom" has been superseded by the price of what passes for "safety" and "security."
--Tom Engelhardt
The senator from Illinois has been promoted by elements in the American financial aristocracy because of his (relative to his peers) rhetorical polish, lack of connection to previous administrations, and bi-racial origins. Obama in the White House would not represent any fundamental change in the direction of US foreign or domestic policy, but he would, it is believed, put a new face on US imperialism, sorely needed after the debacle of the Bush presidency.
--Patrick Martin
Here we have a "former" CIA man, claiming to be an opponent of administration war policies, speaking as a foremost expert on bin Laden, because of his position on the "bin Laden unit." He validates the latest bin Laden videos with his expertise, without ever acknowledging facts about al Qaida and their leader--the nature of the real threat vs. the created perception, the death of bin Laden, al Qaida the database, the builders and instructors of the Pakistani/Afghani insurgent training camps. In his book Imperial Hubris, written under the penname "Anonymous," Scheuer paints a shocking portrait of camps that he claims were built by bin Laden, when, in truth, he knows that these are all CIA built facilities, including the notorious Tora Bora (where bin Laden is allegedly buried), the camps in the Swat Valley in Northwest Pakistan, the scene of ongoing confrontations and under the watchful eyes of a new American super base which is under construction near there.
--Peter Chamberlin
Was the Zapatista insurrection a success? The only answer is in the apocryphal story about the answer that Zhou En-lai is supposed to have given to the question: "What do you think of the French Revolution?" Answer: "It is too early to tell."
--Immanuel Wallerstein
Mandar obedeciendo. Or, obey those you claim to lead. Or, request to politicians, don't double-cross your supporters. Or, if politicians do indeed obey those they claim to lead, request to voters, make sure you know what your vote says. I'm having a button made with that slogan (the Zapatista one) attached to that image. I hope to wear it to the precinct caucus January 19. That is, if I have any reason to attend. The annointed one might be selected by then.
[T]he "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and ... the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's animus.
--David Neiwert
As the Democrat in the race who most fiercely and unapologetically defends her support for the attack on Iraq in 2003, Hilary Clinton's win last night in New Hampshire was paralleled on the Republican side by John McCain's victory. (In 2000 McCain beat Bush in New Hampshire, 46-30. In 2008, with 86,000 votes, he beat Romney 37-32). New Hampshire is not Iowa, where the votes are almost always interesting and the voters are genuinely of an independent disposition. In New Hampshire the two candidates most closely approving of the war and the least emblematic of change came out on top. In her victory speech Hillary Clinton said she wants "to end the war the right way." John McCain, with the same pause, said he wants "to bring them home with honor." The day before, McCain told the press in New Hampshire he thought the US would be in Iraq "for the next 100 years."
--Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (with an entirely gratuitous slander of Dennis Kucinich--who does deserve legitimate criticism)
What did Sibel Edmonds see? Probably a sophisticated contra-proliferation operation, one which attempted to put a backdoor in the Islamic bomb, allowing the Pentagon to turn it off whenever it sees fit. This would have to look like real treason, with covert high-level operatives taking real bribes and dealing with the shadiest arms dealers, all in order for Pakistan to accept what they received from the Americans as something other than a trick (a good counter-proliferation operation should look exactly like a treasonous operation). Fiddle with some parts, turn a couple of the scientists sent to train in American nuclear research facilities, and suddenly the ‘Islamic bomb’ is an ‘Islamic dud.’ The control would extend to any recipients of the same technology, including North Korea.
--Xymphora
America stopped declaring war after 1941 because it was too inefficient. War was put on an assembly-line basis. Now, senators and others briefly huddle before the Pentagon is ordered to bomb the shit out of some unfortunate people. In the process, the president is elevated temporarily to Caesar, never to be seriously questioned before the corpses are all counted. It is an unfortunate matter of style in Bush’s case that Caesar more closely resembles Garfield Goose than Augustus, so treating Bush with imperial reverence always has a certain absurdity about it, but absurdity is never allowed to get in the way of some serious destruction.
--John Chuckman
The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the USA's strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto?
--Norman Finkelstein (1 May 2006)