»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
cluesday June 23, 2009: who Nedā was… and why you should care
Jun 23rd, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

Nedā Āġā-Soltān ( آقا سلطان ), a 26-year-old Iranian woman, was shot Saturday - probably by pro-government militia known as the baseej - and died minutes later. Her death was captured on a gruesome YouTube that went viral almost immediately. As with most people more famous in death than in life, little is known about her.

(ندا آقا سلطان ( بهمن ۱۳۶۱-۳۰ خرداد ۱۳۸۸

(ندا آقا سلطان ( بهمن ۱۳۶۱-۳۰ خرداد ۱۳۸۸

  • Who was she?

Nedā Soltān (her name is sometimes romanised as Soltani) was the second child of three who grew up in the middle-class Tehranpars neighbourhood. She studied Islamic philosophy at Azad University and worked part-time as a travel agent, following her dream to lead Iranians on tours abroad one day. In her short life, she had already gone on trips to Dubai, Turkey and Thailand, and she was taking classes to learn Turkish.

She loved music, but couldn’t decide on an instrument: she had taken violin lessons, but then she decided she’d rather learn piano, so she gave up violin. The piano she bought hadn’t been delivered yet when she was killed.

  • What happened?

She was headed with her friend and music teacher Hamid Panahi to Azadi Square (with the iconic tower) for a protest march. Stuck in traffic, she and Hamid got out of the car to try and get a look around and to get some relief from the late-afternoon heat of Tehran in June. She walked along Kargar Street, talking on her cell phone. A shot rang out, probably from a nearby rooftop. She fell before Hamid knew what had happened. People rushed to help, including another man named Hamed, who recorded her death with a video-enabled cell phone.

Passersby headed in the other direction shouted at them to put her in their car. They raced down the busy streets of Tehran in the midst of a protest, with people trying to clear traffic ahead of them. As they made a wrong turn down a dead end street, Nedā was carried into another car. Doctors at Shariati Hospital tried to revive her, but it was too late.

Meanwhile, Hamed had sent his cellphone video to a friend in the UK, who posted it on YouTube and Facebook. Within hours, millions of people had watched Nedā die.

  • Who killed Nedā?

We’ll probably never know. The most likely possibility is that it was a member of the baseej, the volunteer militia that takes its orders from the Pásdárán (known as the Revolutionary Guard in English). Since she was talking on her cell when she was shot, she may have been a target because cell phones are the primary method for getting information out of Iran. The government speculated that she was shot by members of the left-wing Mojāhedin-e Khalq in order to outrage the protesters, which is certainly possible… though it’s reasonable to be suspicious of anything the Iranian government might have to say.

  • Is it ghoulish or exploitative to watch the video?

For some people, certainly, the only motivation to watch the YouTube of Nedā’s death is the same reason why they slow down at the scenes of traffic accidents: to see blood and gore. Most people have some combination of fascination with and repulsion from death and injury. This is pretty common, and it’s not bizarre in my opinion unless it turns into a mania where you actively seek such videos out.

Nedā was not an activist before the election. Her fiancé says she did not have a preferred candidate. She was an ordinary human being caught up in events. There are almost certainly many more deaths in Iran than we know about… certainly more than the government is admitting the outside world. And while Iran’s struggle is particularly heralded in the West because of our conflicted relationship with that country, it’s not at all uncommon in the world. Many have been killed in protests against unfair elections, and many will continue to.

Nedā Āġā-Soltān is no longer with us, and her image will be used for different purposes by many people in the days and months to come. If the death of a pretty young woman whose life is cut short gives you even a little sense of the pain experienced by many who are fighting, then I can’t see how that’s anything but positive. No one should be under any sort of illusion, though, that the situation in Iran is in any way unusual.

People are probably being killed in Iran as you’re reading this. They’re being killed in Pakistan, and in Zimbabwe, and in Serbia, and in Mexico. Each one of them has a family, and people who love them. Remember that when you look at Nedā.

let’s get small
Jun 22nd, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

Pretty much all of the ugly problems of the world - economic inequality, climate change, domination of our politics by money, and just general crap quality of life - are made worse by the gargantuan scale of our institutions. Bigness may not be the cause of our many problems, but it goes a long way towards preventing any progress in solving them. Government is vast, impersonal and distant; corporations are faceless monoliths that have their own needs and logic. I’ve long believed in the principle of subsidiarity: that institutions should be as close as possible to the people they affect. It’s why I believe in DEVOLUTION rather than revolution per se: revolution would keep our institutional elephantiasis, while devolving to smaller units of government and of business would make progress much, much more possible.

I think collapse of the US, Soviet-style, is not a matter of if but of when… and HOW. Empires crumble, and they’re often messy on the way out. I’d much rather see a planned devolution, rather than the Republic of New England skirmishing with the Union of Great Lakes States over access to the St. Lawrence Watershed, or nuclear war between Texas and California. But history will decide.

Even the Wall Street Journal is positive about the benefits of a breakup, and it’s true that this is one area where the far-left and the hard-right have often met. I think, though, that they envision a US much more like the EU than my own preference of a patchwork of city-states and county-scale governments from sea to shining sea, with a functioning judicial system to arbitrate disputes and ensure civil rights, so that the remnants don’t turn into apartheid states.

I think we’re much more likely to devolve into some Beyond Thunderdome dystopia than an anarchist commonwealth, but the future has a way of surprising you…

why conspiracy theories are fun
Jun 19th, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

I admit it: I used to be a Truther.

When the Internet began to buzz with people questioning the Official Story Of Nine Eleven, I was intrigued. There were pieces that didn’t - and still don’t - quite add up: building 7, the NORAD stand-down, etc. The whole thing was just too convenient for the people who claimed they needed a “new Pearl Harbor” to implement their disturbing vision of America.

But ultimately, louder elements of the Truth movement embroidered ever more elaborate scenarios, and the whole thing took on more and more of the trappings of religion. You either accepted the thing in toto, or you were a “denier,” a “government dupe.” Really, if there were a conspiracy: they would need people this crazy to totally discredit the Truth movement and make the weaker elements of the official story seem rational in comparison.

I believe we are lied to by our leaders. Often. I believe, however, that official lies have that tell-tale shoddiness that is the hallmark of government work: cheap Italian forgeries, or bullets that pass through 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, strike a necktie knot, remove 4 inches of rib, and shatter a radius bone without picking up even a dent in the process.

It’s reassuring, in an odd way, to think that there’s a great conspiracy out there ruling our lives. For one thing, it removes a lot of the responsibility we as citizens should feel to do something about it. When we’re faced with cabals that can demolish two hundred-story towers in the heart of our biggest city in front of national TV cameras, we can rightly feel that there’s nothing we can do about it - or that writing screeds on the Internet is enough.

Above all, though, conspiracies fill our need for believable myths. Modern skeptical minds reject the notion of superhuman beings living on top of a mountain, controlling the weather, having elaborate feuds with each other, and occasionally raping mortals. The idea of a shadowy group controlling human events in boardrooms and offices, however, is all too easy to believe.

People in power will, without the need for a conspiracy, act to preserve and extend their power. They will do things in secret when they need to, but more often than not, they will do it out in the open, because they can. Everything that is happening now - the incremental, boiling-frog restrictions on our Fourth Amendment rights, the wholesale subsuming of the public fisc to business concerns, the acceptance of a permanent state of war as a normal state of affairs - is going on in plain sight. If the 9/11 Truth Movement would put a tenth of the energy into showing all the things that are happening that are objectively provable, rather than conjectures, we might make some headway in connecting those dots, and reclaiming power for our communities. Instead, energy is wasted on a narrative that assumes the powerlessness of the people.

My favorite counter-myth is the one that Matt Taibbi wrote in his book The Great Derangement, which I am reproducing here in full. I’m claiming fair use because the whole damn thing is on AlterNet already. In the following excerpt, Taibbi captures the fallacies that are at the heart of many of my objections to the Truthers. If we had a government as competent as the one they imagine, we might have space stations and flying cars and affordable health care already…


If Cheney & Co. Had Really Plotted the 9/11 Attacks …
By Matt Taibbi, Spiegel & Grau, AlterNet

The 9/11 Truth movement is really distinguished by a kind of defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America’s ruling class. In 9/11 lore the people who staff the White House, the security agencies, the Pentagon and groups like PNAC and the Council of Foreign Relations are imagined to be a monolithic, united class of dastardly, swashbuckling risk-takers with permanent hard-ons for Bourne Supremacy-style “false flag” and “black bag” operations, instead of the mundanely greedy, risk-averse, backstabbing, lawn-tending, half-clever suburban golfers they are in real life. It completely misunderstands the nature of American government — fails to see that the old maxim about “the business of America is business” is absolutely true, that the federal government in this country is really just a lo-rent time-share property seasonally occupied by this or that clan of financial interests, each of which takes its 4-year turn at the helm tinkering with the tax laws and regulatory code and the rates at the Fed in the way it thinks will best keep the money train rolling.

The people who really run America don’t send the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney to the White House to cook up boat-rocking, maniacal world-domination plans and commit massive criminal conspiracies on live national television; they send them there to repeal PUHCA and dole out funds for the F-22 and pass energy bills with $14 billion tax breaks and slash fuel efficiency standards and do all the other shit that never makes the papers but keeps Wall Street and the country’s corporate boardrooms happy. You don’t elect politicians to commit crimes; you elect politicians to make your crimes legal. That is the whole purpose of the racket of government. Any other use of it would be a terrible investment, and the financial class in this country didn’t get to where it is by betting on the ability of a president whose lips move when he reads to blow up two Manhattan skyscrapers in broad daylight without getting caught.

But according to 9/11 Truth lore, the financial patrons of democratic government were game for exactly that sort of gamble. According to the movement, the Powers That Be in the year 2000 spent $200 million electing George Bush and Dick Cheney because they were insufficiently impressed with the docility of the American population. What was needed, apparently, was a mass distraction, a gruesome mass murder that would whip the American population into a war frenzy. The same people who had managed in the 2000 election to sell billionaire petro-royalist George Bush as an ordinary down-to-earth ranch hand apparently so completely lacked confidence in their own propaganda skills that they resorted to ordering a mass murder on American soil as a way of cajoling America to go to war against a second-rate tyrant like Saddam Hussein. As if getting America to support going to war even against innocent countries had ever been hard before!

The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it’s based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq. At its heart, 9/11 Truth is a conceit, a narcissistic pipe dream for a dingbat, sheeplike population that is pleased to imagine itself dangerous and ungovernable. Rather than admit to their own powerlessness and irrelevance, or admit that they’ve spent the last fifty years or so electing leaders who openly handed their tax money to business cronies and golfed in Scotland while middle America’s jobs were being sent overseas, the adherents to 9/11 Truth instead flatter themselves with fantasies about a ruling class obsessed with keeping the terrible truth from the watchful, exacting eye of The People.

Whereas the real conspiracy of power in America is right out in the open and always has been, only nobody cares, so long as Fear Factor and Baseball Tonight come on a the right times. A conspiracy like the one described by 9/11 Truth would only be necessary in a country where the people are a threat to actually govern themselves effectively.

But none of that even matters nearly as much as what 9/11 Truth says about the mental state of the population. The whole narrative of the movement is so completely and utterly retarded, it boggles the mind. It’s like something cooked up by a bunch of teenagers raised on texting, TV and Sports Illustrated who just saw V For Vendetta for the first time and decided to write a Penguin History of the World on the strength of it. A genius on the order of a Mozart or a Shakespeare would be hard-pressed to dream up the awesome comedy that is the alleged plot from the point of view of the plotters. If there was such a conspiracy, remember, something like the following conversation would have had to have taken place:

April, 1999, World Trade Center building 7, New York, NY.
A secret meeting of the Project for a New American Century. In attendance are Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Irv Kristol, and … others. Cheney, standing at the head of the table and glaring downward, addresses the group:

Cheney: Gentlemen, we stand at a crossroads.

Kristol: (whispering to Feith) I love it when we stand at a crossroads!

Feith: (giggling) Me, too. But I never know what to wear.

Cheney: Do you assholes mind?

Kristol: Sorry, Dick.

Feith: Me, too.

Cheney: Okay. (Clears throat). As I was saying, gentlemen, we stand at a crossroads …

Kristol: (in Bill Murray-esque fashion, mimicking suspense-movie soundtrack) Dunh-dunh-dunh!

Feith: Dunh-dunh-dunh! Dunh … duh-duh-dunh!

Cheney: Oh, for fuck’s sake.

Kristol: (laughing) Okay, seriously, Dick, I’m sorry.

Feith: (still laughing) Duh-duh-duh … .

Kristol: Shhh!

Feith: Okay, okay. (to Cheney) No, it’s okay, Dick, you can go on.

Cheney: You’re sure? No more jokes to make? Guys want to do your goddamn Katherine Hepburn impersonations or something?

Kristol: (Channeling “On Golden Pond”) Come on, Norman! Hurry up! The loons, the loons!

Feith: (whispering) Shut up, for Christ’s sake! (to Cheney) Our lips are sealed, Dick. Honest.

Cheney: Okay. Jesus. As I was saying … we, uh, stand at a crossroads. (Pauses warily, continues). As we head into the next millenium, America is the world’s preeminent military and economic power, but the ground is not exactly solid beneath us. We are the inheritors of a great historical mantle, gentlemen, the rulers of the world’s energy supply and therefore the rulers of world commerce. It is a mantle we inherited from the British, who rose to world power on a bed of coal, who in turn inherited it from the Dutch, who put a chokehold on Europe with their fleet of whaling ships. Our turn began when a discovery was made a little place called Oil Creek near Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859 …

Wolfowitz: Dick, you can skip all that stuff. We had our Standard Oil theme party just six months ago. Lynne made the squid ink risotto, don’t you remember?

Cheney: Right. Well, the point is … I think we all know about Marion King Hubbert’s projections about the future of oil reserves. We all know the deal: in every oil field there comes a time when half of the field’s reachable oil has been extracted. After that point, exploitation becomes more and more expensive; as time goes on, it requires more and more energy just to extract one barrel of oil. Eventually, oil extraction becomes uneconomic, which is to say it requires a barrel of oil’s worth of energy to extract a barrel of oil. When that time comes, gentlemen, our oil-based empire is fucked. And the clock begins ticking in that direction once we pass that halfway point with the world’s oil reserves. Once oil “peaks,” America — an empire whose power is based almost entirely upon its oil dominance — will officially be on the decline.

Feith: Yeah. And it doesn’t help that the only reason the dollar is worth more than the peso is that OPEC still trades in dollars.

Cheney: Exactly. Without oil, we’re like Bangladesh with fat people. And here’s the problem: that failsafe point is upon us. I think we all know the oil production in the lower 48 states peaked in 1970, that Alaskan oil production peaked in 1988, Russia around the same time. Saudi Arabia may be just years from peaking, and in any case our political situation there is tenuous at best. Our guys at Halliburton now estimate that worldwide oil and gas production from existing reserves is declining by about 4 to 6 percent every year …

Wolfowitz: So what’s your point? We’re all old anyway. Who cares what happens 20 years from now?

Cheney: The point, Paul, is that the American empire as we know it will collapse within 20-30 years unless we find massive new supplies of oil and find them fast. By 2010 we’re going to need to find fifty million additional barrels of oil per day. And there’s only one place where we can get that much oil …

Kristol: Sweden!

Feith: Of course. Let’s invade! I hate those goddamn speed-skaters anyway.

Cheney: No, you assholes, not Sweden. Iraq. It’s the only major oil-rich state whose reserves haven’t been mostly exploited. There’s probably seven million barrels a day minimum just sitting in those fields — and the worst thing is, unless we get in there soon, it’s all going to go to the French, the Russians and the Germans, since Saddam will sell to all of them long before he deals with us, assuming his UN sanctions get lifted at some point.

Wolfowitz: My God.

Cheney: So it’s clear we’ve got to get in there. Are we agreed on this?

All: Agreed.

Cheney: All right. Well, I’ve got a plan.

Wolfowitz: We get George elected in 2000 and go in, right? Tell the public Saddam’s in violation of his UN restrictions or some shit like that? He is anyway, isn’t he?

Cheney: No, that would never work. The public would never stand for it.

(Everyone bursts out laughing)

Cheney: Seriously.

Wolfowitz: Oh, wait — you’re serious?

Cheney: Absolutely. No, I think the way to go is to cook up some kind of justification. Something that will really get the public behind the invasion …

Feith: I know! We go to the UN, show bogus photos of Saddam’s secret store of chemical and biological weapons, evidence of his nuclear weapons program. Tell the world he’s planning to attack.

Cheney: No. Not emotional enough. I mean something really hot …

Kristol: It could be a human-rights thing. Some emergency, like he’s gassing Kurds again or something. That worked for Clinton in Kosovo. I mean, who gave a shit about Albanians, right? I wouldn’t know an Albanian if I caught one in bed with my wife. But that whole rape-camp thing was good enough by a mile to start that war.

Cheney: No, no, that’s not vivid enough, not Band of Brothers enough. We need the people all lathered up, their mouths full of spittle, howling for blood, like pit bulls. You guys need to think to scale, think big, think like Michael Bay.

Feith: Michael Bay, Jesus. Okay, okay, what, then?

Cheney: We bomb the World Trade Center.

Kristol: Perfect! And blame it on Saddam!

Cheney: No, we bomb the World Trade Center and blame it on Osama bin Laden.

Feith: Oh. How?

Cheney: Easy. First, we cultivate 19 suicidal Muslim patsies from a variety of Middle Eastern countries, I’d say mostly from Saudi Arabia. We bring them to the U.S., train them at U.S. flight schools. They should be high-profile terrorist suspects who are magically given free reign by the security agencies to travel back and forth to various terrorist training camps to study passenger jet piloting. Actually that process is already underway now. Our friends in the Clinton administration are seeing to it that four groups of Arab men are being brought along by the FBI and the CIA.

Wolfowitz: How is it that the Clinton administration is already helping us with this, when we haven’t even planned this yet?

Cheney: They just are. Okay?

Wolfowitz: Okay, fine. And what do we do with these hijackers?

Cheney: We sit idly by while they plot to hijack a series of passenger jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Wolfowitz: And how do we get them to do that?

Cheney: We just do. You see, we worked with these people back in the old mujahadeen days in Afghanistan. So naturally we’re still thick as thieves with them.

Feith: Oh, of course. So we get them to fly into these buildings. And the impact from the planes will bring down the World Trade Center.

Cheney: No, Doug, dammit, you’re not following me. The impact from the planes most certainly won’t be sufficient to knock down the Towers. We know this because we’ve privately conducted studies which show that the Towers will easily be able to withstand impact by two jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel. That said, the jets will likely cause skyscraper fires hot enough to kill everyone above the point of impact; we’re going to have to assume, of course, that the exits from the higher floors to the lower floors will be mostly blocked after the collisions. So assuming we crash the planes about two-thirds of the way up each of the towers early on a business day, we’re looking at trapping and killing a good three, four, maybe even five thousand people on the upper floors.

Feith: Fantastic. I love killing people in the finance industry. It’s too bad the people on the lower floors will get to escape.

Cheney: It is too bad — especially since we’re going to blow up the rest of the building complex anyway.

Feith: We are?

Cheney: Yes. You see, the way I see it, our best course of action is to first crash planes into each the towers, trapping and killing those thousands on the upper floors of each building. After the impact, of course, the people on the lower floors will find their way out of the building and on to the street, where they will achieve relative safety — at which point we’ll finally detonate the massive network of explosive charges we’ve secretly hidden in the buildings in the weeks and months prior to the attacks.

Feith: Wait, why did we do that again?

Cheney: Because the buildings wouldn’t have fallen down unless we did.

Wolfowitz: But why do we need the buildings to fall down?

Cheney: Because the events of the day will be insufficiently horrifying and impactful without the building collapses.

Feith: So why don’t we detonate the charges earlier, so that we can kill the people on the lower floors, too?

Cheney: That’s a good question. At some point we have to sacrifice effect for believability. You see, if the planes crash into the buildings and the buildings immediately collapse, everyone will be suspicious and they’ll immediately be onto the presence of the explosives. So what we have to do is let the planes crash into the building, give the jet fuel time to start fires that will “soften” the building core, and then we detonate the charges. Afterwards, we’ll be able to argue that the fires coupled with the impact actually caused the buildings to collapse.

Feith: Why will we be able to argue that? Didn’t our studies show that impact and fire alone wouldn’t have caused the buildings to collapse?

Cheney: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

Feith: Why can they be counted on to conclude that?

Cheney: Because that’s what our secret research shows their not-secret research will show! Jesus Christ, work with me on this, will you?

Wolfowitz: I think I get it. We crash the planes, kill everyone above the impact of the planes, let the people underneath the impact out to safety, then collapse the buildings about an hour or so later using the explosives that we pointlessly incurred months and weeks worth of career- and life-threatening risk to covertly plant in a building complex visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week.

Cheney: Exactly! The actual deaths will mostly be caused by the planes. But we’ll incur the massive additional risk simply to destroy the building, for effect, because it will look cool and scary on television.

Feith: I’m still confused about the our-studies and their-studies thing.

Cheney: (sighing) What’s the matter, Doug?

Feith: If we know the planes won’t collapse the buildings, isn’t it possible that other people after the accident will figure out that the planes didn’t collapse the buildings?

Cheney: Yes. But those other people will be a tiny minority of mostly non-scientists who’ll deduce the whole plan by researching the matter on the internet. Their groundbreaking, visionary research, however, we can count on being ignored by the mainstream scientific community, which will continue to insist the planes caused the collapses.

Feith: Why can we count on that?

Cheney: Because the mainstream science community, like the whole of the corporate media, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even the mainstream leftist political opposition will naturally be in either conscious or unconscious assent with our plan. Most scientists, you know, depend in some form or another on government funding. So they’ll be highly motivated to sign off on our dastardly mass-murder plot, since they know their salaries — some of these people make almost a hundred thousand a year, you know — ultimately depend on our ability to secure fifty billion additional barrels of oil per day by 2010 by fooling the population into invading Saddam Hussein’s secular Iraq by faking a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals loyal to the Afghan-supported terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

Wolfowitz: No, I get it, I really do. It all makes sense.

Cheney: Also, we have to knock down WTC-7, this very building, in order to get rid of the evidence. I think it goes without saying that we’ll need a command center for these operations, and I can’t think of a place that would be better or more appropriate than an office right next to the point of attack. From these very offices, gentlemen, we will coordinate the military war exercises that will be held in this region on that very morning, war exercises that will so thoroughly confuse our own military that they will be unable to identify and intercept the hijacked planes we will be sending at the towers like so many deadly guided missiles.

Kristol: But, Dick — how can we be sure that the Air Force won’t find a way to intercept the planes anyway?

Wolfowitz: I’ll answer that, Dick. Irv, the best way we can guarantee that will be to issue stand-down orders in addition to implementing the war games.

Kristol: I see. We order the war games in order to stymie the Air Force intercepts we don’t control, but just in case those fail, we’ll control the Air Force intercepts.

Cheney: Now you’re catching on.

Kristol: And the control center for those war games and for all our other plans (including the demolition) will be right here. These rooms are secret and utterly impenetrable to the general public at the moment, but after the attacks they will be vulnerable to forensic inspection by whichever city or federal agency goes through the wreckage of this doomed building.

Cheney: Exactly. That’s one of the reasons I thought we should choose this space. If we chose some other spot as a base of operations — a warehouse in Queens, say — we might be able to keep it secure forever. But if we set up here, we can be sure some snooping official will end up poking around in the ruins. And we want that, it adds intrigue to the whole deal. Because it goes without saying that we won’t be able to control all the cleanup agencies, except those that might be inclined to find our bomb fragments. Those we can count on 100%.

Kristol: Right, but still, we have to really be sure we destroy everything here. Especially all the papers and computer records of the conspiracy plans, which we will naturally leave behind, banking on the fact that they will be destroyed in the hellish conflagration.

Feith: Guys, I’m lost. You’re saying we have to detonate this entire building in order to cover up the evidence of the crime?

All: Of course.

Feith: Why don’t we just not leave the evidence behind and not blow up the building? Why should there be any evidence to leave behind at all?

Cheney: Doug, you’re not being realistic. You always have to leave evidence of covert operations behind for the public to maybe find.

Wolfowitz: Well, except that we never have before.

Cheney: Right, except for that.

(a phone in the middle of the conference table rings. Kristol picks is up.)

Kristol: Hello? Who’s this? Oh, hey, Larry. A gast in shetl! I’ll put you on speaker! (cups phone, presses speaker button; addresses others) It’s Larry Silverstein, the WTC landlord.

Silverstein: Hey guys! Vos makht ir?

Cheney: Not bad, Larry, how goes it?

Silverstein: In dr’erd afn dek! Just awful! But we get by, you know.

Cheney: What can we do you for, Larry?

Silverstein: Oh, hey, well, a little birdie told me that you guys were planning on blowing up my building complex and blaming it on Islamic terrorists!

Cheney: We all have our hobbies, Larry.

Silverstein: Well, naturally, you have my assent. Anything to grease the wheels of international capitalism. Also, as a landlord, I love seeing my tenants burned to death and jumping out of high windows on live television and that sort of thing. Plus, I’m a Jew, you know, I have horns. Paul, how’s your family?

Wolfowitz: Oh, Larry, don’t ask. Clare just last week popped her bursa sac building a sukkah. But does anyone live a life without troubles these days?

Silverstein: Things just keep getting worse and worse, you’re right there. Listen, fellas, about that building complex …

Cheney: Yes?

Silverstein: Do you think you could make sure that the WTC-7 building goes down, too? See, the thing is, I just signed a new insurance deal with Industrial Risk Insurers, this could all work out very nicely for me …

Cheney: Larry, it’s such an amazing coincidence, we were just talking about that. As it happens, we need to destroy the building to get rid of the evidence anyway. So say no more about that, we’ll take care of it.

Wolfowitz: Well, say no more until it happens. Then you might just want to casually mention near a PBS camera that you’re planning on “pulling” the building.

Silverstein: What does “pulling” mean?

Cheney: Well, it’s not a demolition term, but some will say it is. We’re thinking you might just want to make a little admission in that direction.

Silverstein: Before my insurance investigation is concluded? At exactly the time when such an admission would cost me my entire settlement? Consider it done!

All: Thanks, Larry.

Silverstein: You bet, fellas! See you on the links. Mazel tov! Oh, hey, Paul–

Wolfowitz: Yes?

Silverstein: Pull my finger, Paul! Pull it!

Wolfowitz: You bet I’ll “pull it,” you mensch!

Silverstein: Later!

(Silverstein hangs up)

Cheney: Well, that worked out well. I guess the only things left to really worry about are the other two planes. What do you guys think?

Kristol: Well, one plane. I’m thinking with the Pentagon, we send a missile or a drone into the building, then just tell everyone it’s a plane. Just to fuck with people.

Feith: Is this going to be your basic take-the-real-plane-to-a-remote-military-base, kill-the-passengers, then-fake-their-cellphone-distress-calls-using-advanced-voice-recog-technology deals?

Kristol: That’s what I’m thinking. Keep it simple, in other words.

Wolfowitz: Now I’m confused. We hire patsies to fly into the World Trade Center, but for the Pentagon, we don’t use patsies?

Cheney: No. We use patsies, but just not to fly the plane. See, the patsies we choose for the Pentagon job won’t actually have enough piloting skill to maneuver a plane into the Pentagon. So what we’ll do is take a real passenger flight, hijack it and take it to a remote location — say, Wright Patterson Airport in Ohio — and then kill all the passengers on board, including the patsies, with poison gas. Then, instead of using that plane, we’ll either shoot a missile or use one of those GlobalHawk drone planes to crash into the Pentagon. Then we tell everyone that it was actually the missing plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Wolfowitz: Why don’t we just get patsies who can fly a plane? Isn’t that what we’re doing in New York?

Cheney: It’s so hard to find skilled patsies these days.

Kristol: Plus, Paul, it’ll be simple. All we have to do is go to the crash site afterwards and deposit pieces of airplane wreckage, landing gear and so on, at the appropriate places …

Cheney: That’s perfect. I know exactly where we can get some airplane wreckage, too. There was an American Airlines jet that crashed in Colombia in 1995; we can take pieces of that plane and just sort of drop them on the lawn when no one is looking … You know, just like in The Great Escape — drop them through a pantleg while whistling and looking off into the distance, and just sort of kick them around in the burning wreckage …

Kristol: Or even better, we can drop them on the lawn from a circling C-130 after the crash. Just have someone leaning out the cargo bay with big pieces of fuselage, dropping them strategically in between the rescue workers. We can do the same thing with the body parts; we’ll just take some of the bodies, barbecue them with jet fuel, and just sort of toss bits of them here and there around the site.

Cheney: That works for me. What I like about that is that it’s so simple.

Wolfowitz: Okay, let me back up. Rather than just finding some patsies who can fly — which is exactly what we’ll be doing in New York — we instead seize an actual passenger flight and remove the passengers to a remote location and kill them, disposing of the plane later. Then we attack the Pentagon and kill 100 or so of our own people with either a missile or a Global Hawk drone plane, banking on the probability that no one will see a plane shooting a missile in broad daylight of the nation’s capital. Then, after we execute this attack on the Pentagon, we go back to the site and cleverly rearrange the evidence to make it look like a plane crashed there, including planting the samples of DNA of all the people we killed in Ohio or whatever. I’m not saying it doesn’t sound like a good plan, but can I ask why we’re doing this? If we can’t find a patsy who can fly a plane, why not just not crash a plane into the Pentagon?

Cheney: What do you mean? But a plane crashes into the Pentagon. That’s part of the plan.

Wolfowitz: Right, but since it’s our plan and we can change it, why don’t we just scuttle the entire Pentagon operation? We’ve already got the money shot with the Towers — why do we need to go through all the trouble of finding hijackers who can’t fly, nurturing them in the womb of ineffective government surveillance, getting them on a plane full of passengers, and then faking the deaths of all these people, telling the world they died in a plane crash that was actually a sinister attack using our own technology? I mean, so many things can go wrong. You’ve got to get people to sign off on the DNA reports, you’ve got eyewitnesses with weird stories, you’ve got inconsistent radar data, you’ve got to put stuff there for the dogs to find …

Cheney: Don’t worry about the dogs. We’ve got the dogs covered.

Wolfowitz: Oh, well, okay. But still — why not just skip the whole thing?

Cheney: Are you suggesting that instead of executing hundreds of sinister, secretive, murderous sub-plans that all must go off flawlessly to together create a single underpublicized deception, that instead of that we just blow it off and go with the much larger and more spectacular World Trade Center event?

Wolfowitz: Right. Either that or find patsies who can fly.

Cheney: Hmm. Interesting. What do you guys think?

Feith: I don’t know, Dick. It seems much easier just to go with the whole fake-the-flight, kill-the-passengers, fake-the-cell-phone-calls, pass-off-the-missile-attack-as-a-plane-crash thing. I can’t think of any simpler way to do this plan than that.

Kristol: Yeah, Dick, frankly, neither can I. I like your plan better. It’s so much more … cloak n’ daggerier!

Cheney: Well, it’s settled, then. Paul, you cool?

Wolfowitz: Hey, I trust you guys, you know that.

(the phone rings again)

Feith: I’ll get it. (grabs phone) Hello? Oh, hey, Ted, what’s up! (whispering, to everyone else) It’s Ted Olson. (into phone) I’ll put you on speaker, okay, Ted?

Olson: ‘Sup, fellas!

Cheney: ‘Sup, counselor! How goes it? Talked to George much lately?

Olson: As Governor Bush’s attorney, you know I can’t discuss that — even with you assholes.

(everyone laughs)

Cheney: Fair enough, What can we do you for, counselor?

Olson: Well, I don’t mean to be a pest …

Cheney: Speak up, speak up.

Olson: Well, a little birdie told me that you guys were planning on faking an airplane hijacking and shooting a drone into the Pentagon, blaming it all on Islamic terrorists!

Cheney: Sure are a lot of little birdies around these days!

Olson: I was just wondering if you could stick my wife on the plane you’re thinking of hijacking.

Cheney: Barbara?

Olson: Right, Babs.

Cheney: That’s no problem. Consider it done. But you’ve got to get her on the plane.

Olson: Shit, that won’t be hard. I’ll tell her I dropped a dollar in the other airport. She’ll catch the first fucking flight.

Cheney: That’s great. Hey, maybe, actually you could help us. After we take Babs to a military base and dispose of her fat body, can you tell the press that she called you, weeping, on her cell phone during the hijacking? It’ll add verisimilitude to the whole thing.

Olson: You mean like, “Oh, my poor wife, she called me in those last dire minutes before those terrorist bastards took her life, blah blah blah,” that sort of thing?

Cheney: Exactly.

Olson: Hey, I’m a lawyer, I lie for a living. Consider it done. Of course, the pain of losing Babs would be easier if …

Cheney: You want to be Solicitor General, right?

Olson: Well, if you haven’t picked one out yet.

Cheney: Ted, you can count on us.

Olson: Thanks, man. Tell your other evil plotter buddies there that I love them.

All: We love you, too, Ted.

Olson: Later!

(Olson hangs up)

Feith: Well, that worked out well.

Kristol: That only leaves the last plane, I guess.

Cheney: Right. This one — this one I think is going to be tricky.

Feith: How so?

Cheney: Okay, bear with me on this, okay? The plane takes off. Passengers, patsies, the whole deal. The hijackers take over the plane and start steering it toward the White House. But fuck them, okay? We step in, our jets scrambled, and we blow those fuckers out of the sky.

Feith: Boom!

Cheney: Of course, we can’t exactly admit that we killed American passengers, even for a good reason like this would be. So we’ll dream up a story about passengers overpowering the hijackers and downing the plane themselves. “Let’s roll,” a wife will hear her husband say on his cell phone, as he and his brave party of vigilantes storms the cockpit …

Wolfowitz: Oh, I see, right. Because they learned from their families, by talking with them on their cell phones, the terrible fate of the World Trade Center. So they give their lives to save the White House …

Feith: Wow. I’m going to cry, that’s so beautiful.

Cheney: In reality, though, it’ll be us downing the plane with an F-16 or something. The pilots will never talk, never. Nor will the air traffic controllers …

Kristol: Oh, I like that. It’s patriotic. So why do we shoot the plane down, though?

Cheney: Well, because otherwise the hijackers will crash into the White House. But we can’t admit that to the public, they’ll be horrified.

Kristol: But they’re not real hijackers, are they? Aren’t they patsies?

Cheney: Oh, right. Shit! Man, I’m getting confused. We should probably break for lunch soon.

Wolfowitz: No, Dick, I’ve got that one. You see, here’s the thing. Maybe the passengers really will overpower the hijackers. If that happens, it goes without saying that we have to shoot the plane down. We can’t let them land, because then the hijackers will talk, and our whole evil plan will be exposed.

Cheney: Right, right, that’s exactly what might happen. So it goes without saying that we have to be prepared to fake a crash site to make it look like a crash, even though it’ll really be us shooting the plane down.

Kristol: But how can we prepare a phony crash site in advance if we don’t even know for sure right now that the passengers will overpower the hijacker-patsies? Or where or when that will happen? That shouldn’t even be entering our minds at this point.

Cheney: Well, um … fuck. Right again. Paul?

Wolfowitz: I don’t know, man, I’m getting tired at this point. But I’m down with the general idea of shooting that plane down.

Cheney: If we have to.

Wolfowitz: Right, if we have to.

Kristol: But, wait — also, don’t we want the plane to crash into the White House?

Cheney: What, are you crazy? And kill innocent Americans?

Wolfowitz: Irv, come on, now.

Kristol: Guys, we’ve just decided to blow up the World Trade Center. Like five minutes ago.

Cheney: Well, but the White House.

Wolfowitz: Irv, the White House. You’re talking about the White House.

Kristol: Okay, whatever. You know I’m all for it, whatever we do.

Cheney: Look, the point is, we do the Towers and pin it on bin Laden. That leads us to invade Afghanistan. A year and a half later, we invade Iraq.

Feith: And we blame the whole WTC thing on Saddam.

Cheney: Right, and … wait, what? No! No, actually we never make that connection, because none exists. I figure we can just say he’s in violation of his UN restrictions, and that will be a good enough reason to invade. He is anyway, right? In violation, I mean?

Wolfowitz: I think you’re right, he is!

Adapted from The Great Derangement by Matt Taibbi. Copyright 2008 by Matt Taibbi. Published by Spiegel & Grau, a division of Random House Inc. Cluebyfour.com is claiming fair use.

© 2008 Spiegel & Grau All rights reserved.

cluesday comeback: a helpful and succinct exegesis of Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech at Bar-Ilan University
Jun 16th, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

In what I’m sure is the long-awaited return of the regular Cluesday feature, we’ll check out the speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” “Nutt’n Honey” Netanyahu over the weekend. Did he restart the “peace process?” Or did he declare war on the entire Arab world? Or both? Huh? Let’s take a closer look.

  • Clue #1: what’s with the voice?

Bass baritone. Cheltenham High, Wyncote, Pennsylvania, class of ‘67. Panthers, bitches.

  • Second clue: one state or two?

Well… two, so long as the second state has no military, no control over its borders and no control over who can and can’t live inside of them - and is riddled with more extraterritorialized enclaves than LA in Snow Crash.

So. Yeah. One, or… one and a half?

  • Number three clue: growth? what growth?

Obama insists that settlement expansion must stop. Bibi says fine, no new settlements, no new land grabsfor settlements. But he’s holding on to the magic words “natural growth,” which is code for “settler babies.” And so, with nowhere to go but up… expect settler skyscrapers all over Judea and Samaria.

  • Clue אַרְבַּע: no preconditions

Netanyahu proposed immediate negotiations with Arab countries, saying he’d be “willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well… without preconditions.” Except… he “cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized.” Yeah, um, okay, that. A little precondition-y. Also, they get bupkes in Jerusalem.  And Palestinian refugees give up any right to return to homes they lost in the Nakba, and… oh yeah, you guys all have to agree that Israel is a Jewish state. Other than that… let’s shmooze!

Look, Bibi threaded a political needle here. He couldn’t give in too much or his coalition of rightists would collapse. And he couldn’t be too stiff-necked, or Obama would threaten to cut back his allowance. He managed to piss off pretty much everyone and satisfy no one… and he walked away.

This allows the current situation to continue on autopilot. When the wall is finished, and the settlements are complete and fully fortified, and the access roads all secure, the cantonment of the West Bank will be set in concrete. There will probably be just enough violence to keep hard-liners in power in Jerusalem, but not enough to seriously challenge the occupation or alarm any foreign governments.

A generation or more could go by before anything real is done to help the people of Palestine.

And there’s no way that’s not a win for Netanyahu.

the illusion of privacy
Jun 15th, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

I was at a nonprofit I volunteer for, talking over the pros and cons of moving a database they use onto the Internet. As a community organization, they don’t have private or confidential information, but there was still a reluctance (understandable) to put their data “out there.” I reassured them that they’d be able to password-protect their data so it couldn’t be inadvertently modified. But I know that someone sufficiently motivated can always crack anything they want, and I’d certainly never recommend they put anything sensitive out on, say, Google Documents. It’d be like pee in a pool.

It got me thinking of the amount of personal information I have out there. I’ve been online since the early ’90s, have an Amazon account going back over a decade, and I’ve got active and inactive profiles at a number of social networking sites, from Facebook to match.com to LinkedIn. It’d be trivially easy to put together a fairly complete dossier on my political interests, my purchasing habits, my sexual proclivities and my health history. And, yeah… I’m a little creeped out by that, but I’ve pretty much accepted it from before the time I linked my Google account to my old blog. And part of it may be that - having spent my formative young adult years in a communal living situation - I’m used to living under a microscope, and I don’t have that big an issue with people knowing my business.

The fact is, our sphere of privacy is vanishingly small. And the danger lies in the fact that there is less and less accountability of the corporations and governments that possess and control all of this information As security writer Bruce Schneier notes, “those entrusted with our privacy often don’t have much incentive to respect it.”

I used to be an advocate for personal privacy, appending a PGP key to my personal emails and whatnot. Now I find myself moving closer and closer to the Transparent Society vision of British author David Brin: given that personal privacy is increasingly a joke, we must demand similar openness from those who run the show. If there is no one to watch the watchers, then this power will be abused, sure as winter follows autumn.

The up side is that we’ve never had better tools for keeping our governments accountable. The down side, of course, is that our governments have zero interest in being accountable. Even President Transparency is moving to retroactively hide information and prevent anyone from finding out whether they were illegally surveilled.

We’re at a delicate stage of the whole secrecy/transparency curve… in fact, the inflection point is probably well behind us. There is probably still time to reverse the trend… but it will require fairly massive sustained effort.

And in these days of Terror Terror Terror and PATRIOT Acts, the momentum is clearly in the other direction.

codependency
Jun 12th, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

I’m in a relationship that often leads me to contradict a lot of my values and aspirations. I spend a lot of money, and I often wonder why I waste so much time and effort. But I can’t quit him, man.

I speak, naturally, of my 2005 Brazilian Volkswagen: Antônio Carlos GTI.

Tôm fresh off the lot

Tôm when I first brought him home

I’d never had a new car before, and I was working a job where I could afford the payments. So I pretty much bought him right off the lot, at first sight. And he’s been a hell of a car: solid, runs like a champ, fast as hell, easy on gas. I drove him across the continent, and it was great.

But now, I live in a city with decent public trans that’s compact enough that I can walk or bike everywhere… which is a big reason why I moved here. But I find myself clinging to Tôm, in a way that I’m not altogether convinced is healthy.

Part of it is practical, yes: I took out a six-year loan that’ll be paid off in 2012, and the way the amortization is structured means I’ve been mostly paying interest until recently. I’m gaining more and more ground each month, but I wouldn’t get much, if anything, if I sold him now. And I just paid a huge amount in repairs after a hit and run accident, so it’s really hard to justify just cutting him loose. But that’s all pretty much sunk costs… I’m not really making an economic decision here.

Most of the reason why I continue to shell out money for Tôm - loan payments and insurance alone are greater than my rent - is emotional. I finally have a car that’s not rattling itself to pieces as I drive. It’s shiny and fast and I love driving like a maniac on narrow city streets and crowded Traffichusetts highways. And even a trip across town is enough to lift my mood… unless, of course, there’s a Sox game in town. Then I become a Masshole. But even that’s cathartic.

The problem is, I genuinely believe that car culture is destroying the environment, disfiguring the human scale of community and transforming us into atomized scraps of humanity who view the world through a windshield as if it were television. In California, where Happy Motoring has reached its apotheosis, many - maybe most - people don’t know their neighbors. They never walk their own streets… they go from house to car to office to mall to house. And it’s no wonder we have no coherent political culture… it’s all mediated by television and the Internet.

Older cities like Boston at least allow the mingling of different cultures as you walk from neighborhood to neghborhood. It’s so tightly packed that driving is actually slower than biking, often requiring twice or three times as long to drive where you could ride.

Anyway, I’m locked into my sunk cost fallacy. I’ll continue to throw money at Tôm… but I am thinking more and more of selling him when I finish paying off the loan, and buying a nice bike and a Zipcar membership.

Tôm’s probably gonna be pissed, though.

“For most white folks, indignation just doesn’t wear well.”
Jun 10th, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

Once affected or conjured up, it reminds one of a pudgy man, wearing a tie that may well have fit him when he was fifty pounds lighter, but which now cuts off somewhere above his navel and makes him look like an idiot.” - Tim Wise, Of National Lies and Racial America

The right-wing outrage about Judge Sotomayor is the kind of thing that used to freak me out, as did paranoid rantings like Frank Gaffney’s jib-jabber about “our first Muslim president.” There are a great many white folks in this country with chips on their shoulders the size of Toyota Tundras, armed with a sense of entitlement and Remington shotguns. So as a bicoastal libertarian socialist, these types naturally make me grab for the oh-shit bar. Moreso even than my left-wing comrades, pale males like these are fond of revolutionary rhetoric - and seem much more likely to carry it out. Urban radicals are too broke to afford firearms, and they have to take the bus to the barricades.

The truth of the matter is, though, outrage is cheap, like box wine, and just as intoxicating. And it’s ludicrous, in this case; as Wise continues:

Indignation doesn’t work for most whites, because having remained sanguine about, silent during, indeed often supportive of so much injustice over the years in this country–the theft of native land and genocide of indigenous persons, and the enslavement of Africans being only two of the best examples–we are just a bit late to get into the game of moral rectitude. And once we enter it, our efforts at righteousness tend to fail the test of sincerity.

However, I think there’s reasons to see hope in white outrage. First off, America is headed inexorably toward being a mestizo nation. As Nezua points out, as much as the ruling system will add more black and brown (and female) faces in an attempt to hold onto power, this country is going to look very different in a generation. Not only our ethnic makeup, though (and I remember how struck I was, when I got back to the Mainland in 2004, by the fact that you hear Spanish everywhere), but also our position in the world is going to undergo massive, epochal change. America on the way down is going to look hella different than America on the way up.

I’m not saying that there’s not going to be real danger for individuals over the next bunch of years. Some of these people are definitely going to go crazy. But I’m less worried about a Turner Diaries-style fascist uprising than I once was. For one thing: they lazy. For another: they may have the guns (for now) but we got the numbers.

And by “we,” I mean the world.

does selflessness have to suck?
Jun 8th, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

I woke up today wondering about altruism - the impulse to put another person’s interests ahead of your own. Is it all just, basically, people doing things out of a sense of obligation, drummed into their heads by religion or goody-goody liberalism? Or is there something fundamental that we all share, something that has enabled this counter-intuitive selflessness show up again and again throughout human history, uplifting us and guiding our better natures?

Animals do it: a bee, for example, gives up its own life when it stings an intruder. Somehow we humans formed hunter-gatherer bands (the original “is not a gang, is a club” social organization) and protected the weak. Darwin wrote that “each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return,” and that over time, this habit became something that was actually passed down in our genes. And throughout human history, in fact, altruism shows up as the highest of all virtues.

In the Jewish faith, one of the primary teachings of God is “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). Christianity, of course, shows us Jesus dying on the cross for all of humanity, and proclaiming a “new commandment” in addition to the famous Ten: “that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” (John 13:34).

The everyday philosophy of our times is not only based on Judeo-Christian values, but also from the teachings of classical antiquity as well as pop culture. The Stoics in ancient Greece believed that a wise man would act for “reasons which do not further his own desires and projects” and would realize this “will benefit all equally, as well as himself.” In the great American film Bikini Summer II (1992), a couple of rich daddy’s girls meet a homeless man and take him home to care for him. In return, the bum teaches them about the real world and helps them start a band, thus proving the truth of the Stoics’ thesis.

The modern ethic, of course, is to put self before others. Ayn Rand holds that altruism is a form of theft. Reality TV shows are without exception (as far as I know, but then again I can’t stand reality TV so I never watch it) dedicated to the proposition that people need to fuck each other over in order to get ahead. And the unanswered question always seems to me to be who would want to live in a world that looks like reality TV? While it’s true that people do often behave that way, is it really so great that we want to marinate ourselves night after night in cut-throat behavior?

What seems to often get missed is that helping people out is fun. In fact, there are actual neurochemicals involved, which is kind of cool. A team of Israeli psychologists found that a group of individuals who displayed selfless behavior had a certain variant of the dopamine receptor gene, which is associated with feelings of pleasure. This corresponds to earlier U.S. studies that found that people who help others often experience a “helper’s high.”

There’s a grim kind of “eat-your-vegetables” Puritanism that’s often associated with volunteering and doing good, which obscures the fact that the helper’s high tends to be far more sustainable than the selfish kind. There’s really no end to the good that can be done, while there is a functional limit to the number of Benzes that you can actually enjoy. the second one doesn’t feel as good as the first, and by the time that you have a different S-class for every month of the year you may feel a certain jadedness set in. I’ve never heard of a volunteer being jaded after having made too many elderly shut-ins smile.

If the reality is that the things that our culture tells us make us happy actually don’t, and that the crappy boring things are really more fun…. what does that say about our culture? And what other things that are commonly accepted as true might be utter and complete bullshit?

The devil you know
Jun 7th, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

I’m pretty cynical about politics in general, and US power politics in specific, but even I have been surprised at how quickly and completely Obama has moved to make Bush policies his own… and with only sort of a half-nod at putting a friendly face on them.

So far we have

This is why I’ve felt that a liberal President is more dangerous than a conservative one. With a right-winger in the White House, at least there’s the possibility of a challenge from the left. But when the President is one of their own, liberals sit on their hands even if they object. And this benefits neither Obama nor the left.

Obama might be doing a lot of these things because he genuinely believes in them, or he might be responding to what he perceives as political pressure. Either way, though, he’s going to keep making these moves as long as there’s no real resistance to them. That’s just political reality.  And that’s exactly what we saw throughout the Bush years: the Leader made a move, and his followers rushed to endorse it.

With so-called progressives in the media praising Obama for his “post-partisan” mindset, and his desire to “look forward, not backward,” Obama is totally empowered to carry on most of the Bush policies while refusing to charge anyone for - or even investigate - the worst abuses.

I can’t see any way it could ever be any different, even if the Democrats nominated a saint for President. The realities of power politics make “change from within” an empty slogan, regardless of what the Imams of Hopeandchange are preaching this weekend.

My feelings about Obama remain the same: in his ceremonial role of Head of State - our constitutional King - I’m still kinda proud of him as our first national leader of color and as an often inspirational speaker. As Head of Government, though, he is perpetrating evil acts, as have all Presidents of the United States. It’s as dangerous as hell for progressives and liberals of whatever stripe to let their regard for the man - or the symbol, whatever - keep them from protesting, and working to reverse, his actions.

Update: add “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the list…

reboot!
Jun 1st, 2009 by Paul Daniel Ash

Yeeeaaahhhh.. I hate that word too. But it’s a little less heavy-handed than rebirth! or renaissance! or zombie blog, back from the dead! so I’m going with it.

I’m blogging again because I want to write every day, either on the novel or here. I started cluebyfour.com with the idea of doing it as an income generator, but its really sinking in that, more than ever, I actually have zero interest in being a problogger. Not that I wouldn’t mind having more people come and read - and, hopefully, comment - but the whole idea, originally, was just to have a place to write more often.

Anyway, I’m planning on hanging on to two of my weekly regular features: Cluesdays and Tech Thursdays. The rest will be a grab-bag… I got the most hits and the best response when I just wrote from the heart about what was going on with me. So… yeah, more of that. Only better.

Also: I’ve finally been able to import everything from the old crazylikewhoa blog, including the whole coast-to-coast series, which was the most popular stuff I ever wrote. I am particularly proud of how those posts turned out, so that feels good in addition to having everything in one place.

But wow… five years of blogging. Damn.

»  Substance: WordPress   »  Style: Ahren Ahimsa
© paulus aciavatus fecit mmix