PakPanic - PakPanic - PakPanic, or, A Yak About Pak

Recently I heard Andy Rooney on '60 Minutes' make a funny and accurate statement about Pakistan stories dominating the western media these days. He doubted that any of them even really knew anything about Pakistan. Not only do I think it's a true statement, but it is a woeful indicator of what happens when the media spotlight is turned on a 'hot zone' and every newsie in Christendom descends, looking for glory.

In the old days, an editor would say, 'get out there, kid, on the double, and bring back a story!' The kid would bust ass to get there, but if they were worth anything, the route to the story would be taken up with cramming any info that was available in order to achieve some kind of background status in order to deliver a credible story. Today it seems that reporters just show up and expect the story to present itself for convenient packaging.

Such is the status of Pakistan in the western media's impatient eye. I've hardly heard any reports from or about Pakistan that really deliver much depth of understanding or even displaying much interest. (Philip Reeves, who supplies stories for NPR, is a rare exception.) The wretched branding of Pakistan being the 'world's most dangerous place' is now the rallying cry. East Timor or Rwanda in all their awful turmoil presented no perceived threat to the world at large, regardless of the fact that they were, for their inhabitants, right up there with hell as being on the most dangerous list. But you see, they aren't nuclear nations, so who cares?

Pakistan: nuke nation. Run by a dictator. Overrun with jabbering fanatics. Dealing nukes on the sly. Surrounded by either hot conflict (permanently-ruined Afghanistan) or simmering potential conflict (kooky Iran, lurking India, further-but-still-lurking China). A returning challenger immediately deported (Nawaz Sharif). A returning challenger almost bumped off (Benazir Bhutto). Trouble. Trouble. Trouble. Trouble. Everywhere you look. Trouble in River City. That's what the western media thinks about Pakistan.

Well, I guess some of that stuff can't be denied. Far be it from me to be an apologist for Pakistan's current situations. I am, however, irked, annoyed, and consummately pissed off by much of the western media's choices in covering this misunderstood entity in the world. 'Misunderstood' is too easy a label to slap on it, but in an era of sloppy-seconds coverage of the world's affairs, a sloppy term might be appropriate.

Without turning this into a bloody thesis, let's get right to the essentials:

- Pakistan is not the Middle East. It is not Central Asia. It is Indic. For only 60 of its multiple thousands of years amassed as a cultural hearth, the territory now delineated as Pakistan has been Pakistan. Before that it was as diverse a part of India (and I'm not at all referring to greater India, but India as a cultural unit) as anywhere in the subcontinent, with the subcontinent's myriad of variations appearing under the Indic super-category, as it were. In addition to these regional basics, the long era of British domination (which for Pakistan really only extends back to the mid-19th century) brought with it English language medium in education, British-created modern infrastructure, and, very importantly, a British-model military. Since the military crisis of 1857, the Indian Army was intentionally crafted to be one of the most disciplined in the world, and this tradition survived Partition in 1947 intact. It is precisely this tradition of discipline that has enabled it - the military - to run Pakistan for many of its 60 years.

- Pakistan is 99% Muslim. The enveloping culture though, is Indic, not Arabic, nor Persian. Taxila and Harappa are sites that are among the world's most ancient civilizations. There are extensive and highly-honored ancient Buddhist remains throughout the land. Alexandrine associations abound. Hindu and Sikh influences are built into daily life. Urdu is the language of the majority, but it is basically Hindi with Persian script. Other languages (to mention only a few) are Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pushtun, Kashmiri and Afghani. Like India, diversity is what Pakistan is all about. But the Indic culture, combined with British and post-British modern systems, with widespread English-speakers, all combine to form a considerably durable entity. Despite its current duress, Pakistan is in no way a failed state.

- Women in Pakistan encounter adversities which are worthy of criticism and ripe for reform. Yet, Pakistan is one of the more liberal Muslim societies regarding women. Indic culture has had strong matriarchal traditions since time immemorial. Pakistan has elected a woman as prime minister twice. So has India. So has Bangladesh. So has Sri Lanka. This is the Indian subcontinent. It is different.

- Most of the conventions that westerners apply to terms like 'dictator' do not necessarily apply to Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf is no Saddam, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Bob Mugabe or even Marcos. When Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India in 1975, she was immediately branded as a dictator. But after the crisis passed, she was still Mrs Gandhi first, and the dictator label faded, but not completely. Musharraf has without a doubt performed dictatorial gestures, but with variations that are simply not compatible with western journalistic interpretations. On the other hand, just because Musharraf appeared on 'The Daily Show' and seems not to be a snarly bastard doesn't mean he's a dictator that we can feel wholly comfortable with. Dubya's cuddled up to him because of his dumbass but precious War on Amorphous Terror, but for wholly opportunistic reasons.

- Much of Pakistan's very being has to do with the most important factor in its daily existence. More important that Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iran, the USA and terror put together. That factor is: India. Three wars, losing East Pakistan and seeing it become Bangladesh, and yes, because of the nuclear issue, India has everything to do with how governing Pakistan is handled. And it's not all bad. India and Pakistan are part of the same super-family. A high percentage of people in both countries have or have had relatives in the other. The Indian subcontinent was a house divided, but the house has essentially stood, with annexes, so to speak. Back in the days when the US didn't give a shit about the subcontinent except how it affected the Cold War, letting things drift didn't matter so much. Now that India is more 'OK' with the US, and Pakistan is more important to the Bush Machine's immediate needs, the western media has landed. And they are generally dumbos who treat the place as if it's Iraq or something.

- Pakistan's army, efficient instrument that it is, is oriented to India, whether in the defensive or offensive mode (it has usually been offensive). Kashmir is officially unsettled, but it is a stalemate that has gone on so long it will probably add up to a settlement to new generations who have known nothing else. The Pak army is not geared to fighting a bogus 'war on terror.' The Tribal Areas on the Northwest Frontier were never conquered by anybody. The British were still dusting up with them right up to 1947. The Pakistani government has had agreements with them that have been relatively functional, until recently.

These factoids, among many others, are extremely important, because they add up to a considerably complex and sophisticated array of challenges that must be dealt with carefully at any one moment, and most of them cannot be reduced any further into sound bytes. Indeed, there is so much to keep in mind in this part of the world that the average journalist is not up to the task. Yet the dabblers are at it, packaging the Pak puzzle for public consumption, and perpetuating misunderstandings right and left with the greatest of ease. Lost in the frenzy are, surprise, surprise, the Pakistani people, who have been reduced in western sensibilities to non-entities, largely in stock shots of autistic-appearing kids in madrassas and other generic cliches. 160 million can be reduced to a convenient barcode, so to speak, I suppose. It's nothing short of disgusting.

When I heard NPR's Jackie Northam, a proudly seasoned reporter supposedly used to Asiatic climes, refer to a particular area in northwestern Pakistan as 'something called the Swat Valley', then blithely called it a 'tourist zone', I thought, stupid, stupid people. They make my eyeteeth curl. A minor detail, perhaps, but it speaks volumes of the dismissive tone of some of these worthless hacks. Philip Reeves never would have engaged in such a blatant lack of meticulousness, in a region where meticulousness is absolutely required. This 'thing' called the Swat Valley is, or was, a profoundly beautiful region with a hospitable populace, whose splendid isolation has been ruined by Bush's mobile 'war on terror'. Oh, and a busy Jackie also says 'the Islamists' are coming, and that they're heading to all the cities in Pakistan. Never mind the 160 million other Pakistanis, engaged in their daily lives, hardly affected at all by Musharraf's state of emergency, who might have something to say about that.

My point being: more depth of understanding is required from the western media if they are going to take on the subcontinent. It seems that in the western media's view, the essentials that I have only started to outline above, are not really attended to, or even acknowledged. If the media are not up for the job, they had best stay home and cover the region via Google Earth and just make cell phone calls.

Randoms: Boy, Am I BUGGED By NPR, Or What??

NOTE: Particularly prurient readers may want to jump directly to Random #5, just below. – (signed) Your Editor, representing The Melmoth

1.) Daniel Zwerdling, occasional reporter for NPR, has guts. He's doing important work in following stories dealing with shameful treatment of US veterans and their situations. But I get the feeling that Zwerdling might be somewhat of an embarrassment to the more cheerleading members of NPR. He has obviously been sidelined, though I'm sure the managing editors keep him in semi-circulation to appear 'fair and balanced' to those 'thinking' masses that make up their aging audiences. Zwerdling might even have to fight to get his stories aired. In any case, he doesn't seem to be in on the palsey-walsey comraderie that, say, Sunday morning's Liane Hansen seems to enjoy with that David Welna character (you know, the guy with the extremely distracting nasaly voice). Though Zwerdling seems relegated to token status, as NPR's reporter of stories few others wish to take on, he maintains his integrity with a real sense of responsibility. I think he probably feels he's reaching a wider audience than if he was on some website or Air America, but his findings are generally surrounded by swill. Meanwhile, most of his colleagues at NPR are luxuriating in their cushy candy store gigs.

2.) I find the bland and nonchalant approach that these weekend morning hosts apply to their interviews with important people in current events extremely curious. Scott Simon cops an interview with Al Gore, but botches it entirely by treating him like he's some tiresome insurance salesman or something. Liane scores a phone interview with Benazir Bhutto, yet puts about as much journalistic energy into it as a dry slug who's run out of slime. It's as if they're too cool to show that they're either impressed by the magnitude of their guests, or a refusal to employ reasonable (not to mention interesting) journalistic practices of merit. Yet, they get all wiggly and giggly and drooly interviewing some boring novelist or dogcatcher with a funny story that they can tut-tut about between smirky laughs.

It's just crappy radio, that's all.

(I feel like Kevin Phillips, who once stated on PBS’ ‘Now’ that he was their Resident Curmudgeon.)

3.) You know it's a flop of a morning show when the most sickening element is Liane's goopy interaction with the Puzzlemaster's guest of the week, and she tries in vain to vary the horribly predictable scripting of the whole Puzzle segment . . .

3a.) PLUS: I hate the story-telling nature of the scripted bridges between stories, those tiresome background summaries for dummies, the same sort of schlock that's taken over Time and Newsweek, yet they'd like you to think they have the sophistication of The Economist or reasonable equivalent. (Maybe the National Review would be a better example - though these days I kind of like Bill Buckley, who's spending his Golden Years quite alienated from the Gang of Frankensteins he created.)

4.) We have a new local weekend host who's pretty amateurish, I'm afraid. I kind of feel sorry for him, yet he's not easy to endure. He hasn't even learned how to properly engineer yet (if he ever will), and says stuff like: the 'Voices in the News' bit is his favorite part of the show, as it gives him 'chills' to listen to! Funny, I always thought it was annoying, because it's just a jumble of sound bytes spliced together with an impatient music track behind, and it always leaves you in the lurch, as if, 'so there!' I guess it's supposed to stimulate your early Sunday morning by bringing up conversation points for you and your Starbucks-gulping Dockers-wearing, FloMax-popping SUV-driving mates to chew over, like pieces of foodie gristle.

5.) And finally, perhaps most importantly, has anybody noticed how NPR refuses to descend to the level of reporting on most of the Republican SEX SCANDALS that keep popping up with breathtaking regularity? I suppose that after Scott Simon’s elegant and Lincoln-like defense of Larry Craig, the bar has remained at its high and noble level – intact. They don’t ‘do’ SEX SCANDALS apparently, unless you’re Mara ‘Zombie-Eyes’ Liasson and Bob ‘Pursed-Lips’ Siegel, in hot pursuit of Bill ‘Blow-Job’ Clinton.

[You see, listeners to NPR do not know who the gentleman in the before-and-after photos above is, or what he did, although they might assume that he is a Republican.]

Well, I'd better leave off before I really start hating myself for dissecting this interminable blah-blah-blah radio matter to such an extent . . . !

Cheerful Imperialistic Condescension Advantage

One of the reasons why NPR is so worthy of contempt is because so many opportunities to examine truths in the world are squandered, if not downright rejected.

I promise I'll be brief. But when I heard Gwen Thompkins' little feature on the 'new' Libya, and how it's opening up, I was dumped upon with fetid garbage that reminded me how much I can't stand the 'new' NPR. What could have been a trenchant and valid exploration of a nation that succeeded in normalizing relations with the US in spite of the current occupants of the White House, Gwen prefers to stroll though her Libyan experience by being coy, imperialistic, and worst of all, cute. I can say no more, because my heart is broken at the abject failure of Americans to take up the responsible role of inspiring through integrity, given opportunities that no one else may care about. Instead, many have chosen to reduce the world to Wal-Martish packaging, where nothing matters but the consumers' damp dream of self-fulfillment.

In Thompkins' report from this formerly-closed nation, trivializing, condescension, mockery, and smug ridicule color her thoughts of this country, long alienated, but now, according to Thompkins, ready to open itself up to sleazy sub-capitalists, the kind of Africans she feels most comfortable with. And, she implies, we should feel comfortable with them, too, despite their whimsical and Saturday Night Live-ish quirks.

I can never forgive Thompkins for displaying African perspectives in such a disgusting manner. I consider it a misfortune that I chanced upon her insipid report.

Problem: Thompkins is having sex with her own voice, which fits into the narcissistic verbiage of NPR perfectly. You can imagine her concluding her report of the day with a little self-pat on the back and the thought: ‘Am I hot, or what?’

Gwen's next stop: Missy Dana Perino's post, or 'Entertainment Tonight'!

The Begats

This morning, I heard one of the stupidest science reports I've ever run into on NPR. It was part of their grudging recognition (a la Frank Luntz) that global warming actually exists, and now, with reports like this one, NPR can't be accused of only using the term 'climate change'.

I'll try not to run on. Christopher Joyce reports about burning the rainforest in the Amazon region. OK, most of us (especially first graders on up) know about the risks to the rainforest. Well, Joyce's report sounds like it was done in 1987 instead of 2007. Apparently, he and the team of amateur-hour 'scientists' he interviews are just discovering that yes, the Amazon forests are at risk, and that may have something to do with climate change - er, I mean, global warming - a term they actually use.

Of course this is all a big deal; the degradation of the Amazon is one of the world's great crises, and it's gotten a lot of publicity, but the way Joyce’s whole report is couched, this is a new discovery! And in my opinion, the whole activity that these alleged scientists are up to is contemptible, and downright unnecessary: they burn tracts of the Amazon forests to see if it contributes to global warming! If fact, their leader has been doing it 'for years'.

The high purpose of this ersatz mission is to see if foresty-type stuff, uh . . . burns. Especially during the dry season. Scientific method will hopefully prove that 'fire begats fire'. A Biblical concept if there ever was one.

Sure enough, after these firebugs have sprayed their fuel and struck a match and devastated who knows how many hectares of vulnerable forest, yup, sure enough, it's official: 'Fire begats fire.'

Sounds like all they're doing is burning up grant money (from religious right organizations, maybe?) and not just valuable forest, while posing as frontline researchers who will save the world.

And of course, in great NPR white-bread tradition, Reporter Joyce tags along, reveling in his gullibility, snazzing the story up by mentioning snake bite kits (but neglects to say if anyone's ever been bitten), and offers no insight, irony or critique of anything at all. He DOES use the term 'promethian' though, which makes things a bit more sophisticated.

The whole enterprise of this so-called research sounds about as stupid as that awful museum of creationism, or whatever it's called, and just as damaging. In the process of re-learning what they already know, who can say how much wildlife they destroy, how much torched vegetation, and how much these 'tests' themselves contribute to, uh, global warming? And this NPR 'report' comes so recently after the devastating S. California fires (no reference/connection made there, either). These idiots should be arrested for arson. Christopher Joyce, catching them red-handed, could have at least made citizen's arrests!

Mr. President, We Can Damn Well Catch 'Em With Their Pants Down!

Like most bloggists, sometimes I wonder why I devote irreplaceable time to such matters as NPR. But the thing is, it's important to ventilate if something really bugs you. So I wobble onward.

No need to get too detailed, but there was a segment this morning that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt (as if those who have been paying attention are still doubters), that NPR aids and abets those with a neocon agenda. It was hosted by Great Scott (Simon - everybody's favorite NPR 'humanist', who's actually pretty steeped in the fuddy-duddyness of neo-conservatism, though he may not even know it yet).

Well, this particular segment was a little showcase for two neocons - I don't even need to name them, as they are standard-issue types without one iota of profundity between them, though they 'differ' on a couple of dilettante-ish issues from the stale smorgasbord of failed neocon junk food that's so casually marketed to the masses.

Anyway, one of them said that Iran had nuclear weapons already, and the other boldly and patriotically said that they didn't but implied that they would soon, so we better catch 'em, to paraphrase George C. (truly Great) Scott in 'Dr. Strangelove', 'with their pants down!' This dude advocated bombing Iran as if there would be no consequences, as if doing so was akin to picking up some consumer item at a big box store or something equally self-centered. As if, 'I want what I want and I want it now.' Classic American Enterprise Institute-speak, where scholars and consultants labor day and night for the world's benefit. Because, as that first-class bastard and bulldozer Robert Moses, who single-handedly rendered New York City car-dependent and car-dominated, was wont to say, 'You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.'

As for humanitarian Simon, he dealt with the two bozos with ever so much grace and gentleness, posing only the most daintily-worded 'challenges' that were about as imposing as a 5th grade introduction to putting together a class newsletter. Predictably, there was absolutely NO contrasting or opposing debate to the two guests' inane offerings, nor was any such thing promised. No matter, NPR was simply fulfilling its mandate of acting as publicist for neocon concerns, part of its diligent and years-long program of infiltrating the educated middle and upper classes of the nation, and doing in those old Commie-pinko-fag professors once and for all. Or something like that . . .

I Can Get It For You, Cheap!

The Blackwater horror of September 16 in the year 2007 has sinister repercussions that spread past its contemporary impact. Among other examples, both infamous and obscure, it is particularly reminiscent of the Amritsar, India, massacre of 1919, when the British open-fired on a peaceful crowd and over 1000 civilians were killed. There were investigations, of course, as many good Brits were outraged. However, after much deliberation, the commanding officer, Gen. Dyer, was actually acquitted. In a British court. Amritsar became a seminal rallying point for the Independence movement, with Mahatma Gandhi's Congress party gaining a major foothold, though 1947 was a long way off yet. Michael O'Dwyer, the Governor of the Punjab, who approved of the action that led to the massacre, was later assassinated. It's not as if the people who are affected by things like massacres just move on and forget about them. If anything, the seeds of revenge are planted, and very deeply.

It will be interesting to see how the Iraqis themselves will respond to any outcome of the Blackwater case, and just how tolerant they will be to any acquittals that might result.

Imperialism inevitably involves conflict between the conquering force, which parades itself as 'good guys' and the anonymous, faceless victims of the conquered, who often happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in numbers that render them, en masse, as virtually 'expendable'. Life becomes especially cheap when it is anonymous. So, the less the US knows about these victims as persons, the better for the neocons and their ilk. Imperialism has very little to do with humanity.

America's nouveau dabbling in Empire is not only a complete failure, it puts much of the world at toxic risk. If the US embraced a benevolence (or at the very least, respect) instead of bellicoseness, other nations would not be so compelled to seek out so-called weapons of mass destruction. The US is driving various nations into this posture, but that's what the neocons want, so as to justify their insane agenda.

We can identify this process, but what is to be done?
Chimpeach! Time is running out.

The Gals of Monday Morning

Now listen gang, I'm all for women in the media, but from 5AM onward, NPR's 'Morning Edition' was almost a non-stop 'Today' show of featurettes featuring their finest lineup of female reporters, covering everything from playing around with polygraphs to noting the 'nasty perfume' hanging over a Libyan conference on Darfur, to tromping about the Vermonty Fall Colour in search of sappy maples under the pretense of a Global Warming angle. Plus, there were plenty of cutesy-pukey little pause fillers, from Annoying Music to insufferable anecdotes too brutally awful to mention. Grand Central Stationing it all was a cheerily chirpy Renee Montagne, who just about outdid them all in making your Monday morn a darn super experience.

But - but - why was I lying there in the pre-dawn gloom, tense, tightened up, instantly in a bad mood, despite a restful night with pretty positive dreams, my wife nearby, and our faithful hound, curled up, tuckered and grunting with pleasure? BECAUSE, the whole dumpster full of audio slop that I'd been subjecting myself to, in search of straight news, was entirely drenched in narcissistic, smug, self-absorbed, Mall-minded, dumbed-down, Fox-ified, blathery CRAP!

(Two horrific car bombings in Iraq, and Porter Wagoner expired . . .)

I know, I know, Nationalistic Puffball Radio's demographics have surely shown that the rising audience for NPR is probably (white middle/upper class) women in their 30s-40s (i.e. ranging from Annette Bening's character in 'American beauty' to Volvo-driving Sudoku moms), while the guys in their lives either prefer Rush and Michael 'Smeghead' Medved, or else 24/7 ESPN. So, NPR's gotta get boutique-y right fast if them corporate sponsors are gonna make NPR truly bloom and boom.

Know what I feel like doing? Watching 'The View' every morning. I think Barbara Walters and her gang probably provide more sanity and insight than the ding-dong dullness of the Mall-rat-run radio station from hell, once known as National Public Radio.

Briefly: Torture

There was a recent report from NPR's Anne Garrels, describing some 'renegade Sadr militiamen' who were tortured, and now, because of their torture, were supposedly telling truths about being trained in Iran. Garrels seemed to believe their confessions, which had been delivered under torture, and so based her report on their 'testimony'.

In the 'NPR Check' blog, Mytwords wrote to NPR, stating that Garrels' report was barbaric in its assumptions and in its acceptance of torture victims as a valid source of information.

I praised Mytwords for these statements. I suspect that if there is a mechanized response to them from NPR, then that will probably certify that they are dreadfully afraid of the questions posed. If a personalized reply happens, they will probably defend 'General' Garrels to the limit, equating her with Ed Murrow during the London blitz, or some such delusion.

As I've intimated before, I can't help but wax cynical over Garrels and her ilk, who seem to be buccaneering the war for their own kind of perverse profiteering. Sure, there will be book deals, but a film contract or a video game deal is where the big bucks lie.

No matter how much the issue of torture is decried in public, the fact is, the US has embraced such savage techniques. Their excuse: in 'asymmetrical' warfare, one must fight fire with fire. Journalists like Garrels, whose objectivity has been sacrificed for the sake of their egos, now have mutated into voyeurs to a world where torture is normal and thus, taken seriously. It is a fact that torture doesn't work. IT DOES NOT WORK. So how can it be taken seriously as a tool of warfare? If journalists lack the insight to discern this persistent truth, then they fall prey to torture's wider effects. They buy into the whole illusion: that torture can indeed work, and that it can be accepted without too much question. How can we possibly rely on them to separate realities from illusions?

There is also a blatant racial issue attached here. The US tortures predominantly non-Caucasian people, people that the US does not intrinsically care for. This is not the place to expound on this subject more, but it is a matter that is completely sidestepped within the public debate on torture.

Never has Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' (to mention only one examination of conscience) been so timely.

PostMortem:

Hell, I think the world is now divided (to put it in Bush/neocon terms!) into those who are against torture, and those who are for torture. Many who are for it WISH it would work, so as to ease their fears, but those of us who are against it, KNOW it doesn't work, so our fears are increased.

Sen. Paul Wellstone Died Five Years Ago

The first thing I thought when Paul's plane went down in 2002 was: they got him. They took him out.

Honestly, how could that not be a possibility? It's not just a movie plot notion or a cheap conspiracy theory. These things do happen in America - all the time. But many Americans just don't think it's possible, or it's pretty improbable. People like to put on the 'dubious act' when a movie-like plot presents itself in current events. They think it's not very plausible. Like a movie: 'oh, that wasn't very realistic; that couldn't have happened . . .'

But for over six years, we've had a significantly overflowing dumpster-full of examples from which form our not unreasonable line of questioning. The Bush Machine is entirely suspect, on many, many levels. Mafia tactics are employed every day, and there's plenty of proof. They bank on the fact that people will respond to their acts with 'oh, that couldn't have happened . . .' or some such reaction. People expect that power players, working with high stakes, are going to be as rational and as decent as they are. They tend to think that the standards and rules are based on fair play, if not the honor system. When the stakes increase, standards change and degrade. There is no shortage of evidence of this, on many levels, from small town corruption to shady deals involving the new near-billion dollar US Embassy in Baghdad. Of course, many people expect corruption in places high and low, but I'm addressing specifically here those who scoff at the idea of political figures in contemporary America acting like players in a Martin Scorsese movie.

The posit of Wellstone being bumped off is not a paranoid interpretation; it's perfectly reasonable to entertain the idea that Wellstone was taken out for any number of reasons. To the Bush Machine and the neocons, Paul was a growing threat, one who could possibly spearhead a genuine grassroots movement in America that promised to pose major headaches and roadblocks. He had to be taken out before he really got going. This is Mafia Tactics 101.

America is awash with crime shows, reality crime shows and websites, mysteries and whodunits. The realism of 'The Sopranos' should have taught people about the plausibility of applying mafia techniques to all sorts of situations in life. The Wellstone case is a mystery that isn't too hard to figure out. The thing that's particularly galling about it is that we can't expect the truth to be revealed because it's too highly connected, like so many cases today, from Abu Ghraib to Blackwater.

The question, of course, is: who exactly did the deed. then? Well, after limp 'investigations' and pat explanations from presumed authorities, cases like Paul's are quickly shut down or pronounced resolved. Real facts are supressed and information is impossible to obtain. Now it's my turn to say 'oh, that couldn't have happened . . .' when I hear the half-baked statements about what supposedly went wrong with Paul's plane. Like JFK, Jr., such explanations are extremely suspicious. But the deed is done, and protection is always in play for the deed-doers. Thus, the corollary leads to assumptions of extraordinary forces, such as the Bush Machine, as the authors of such missions. Covert power pulls off covert action. Yes, it really is like a movie, for art imitates life.

RIP Paul Wellstone. You will never be forgotten.

The Vultures of Righteousness

Governor Bush (I like George Carlin's preference in calling Dubya Governor, seeing how the gubernatorial election in Texas was the only election Bush ever won) has just made a silly old speech about Cuba, and how 'their day will come' in returning to Bush's Mafia Democracy. (Yes, returning; remember the Cuba sequence in 'The Godfather Pt II'?) NPR responded by limply parroting Gov. Bush's tiresome rhetoric.

Yes indeed, just like Iran, the American vultures are getting impatient to take back 'their' Cuba. And also like Iran, there will be NO negotiation. The terms are: the vultures win all, take all. None of this 'sharing' business. For their part, NPR (Nationalist Propaganda Radioactivism) and the MSM (MainStream Media, Inc. TM) in general want to be on the 'right side' when such takeovers occur. They want to be in the first wave of glory - whatever that entails. It sounds corny, but the stakes are just too high for journalists to really get investigative about these kinds of political situations. There's much more in it for them to be parrots than true journalists, with a goal of getting at the truth of the matter. Truth-seekers will undoubtedly be shut out of future cushy deals, because corporate management is all about cushy deals. When Cuba is 'restored' to being the cash cow of the Caribbean, plenty of plummy media opportunities will open up, and the hell if media empires are going to miss out by supporting some fancy-schmancy truth-digger. Thus the ongoing kowtowing and sucking up to the Bush Machine and other neocon enterprises, worldwide.

Place Your Bets, Poets

Dubya is tireless in his publicizing of the dubious mis-translation of Ahmadinejad's 'wipe Israel off the map' statement.

To quote Juan Cole: (http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html)

"As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street)."

Now Iran has long been a poetic culture. Rumi and Omar Khayyam are most known in the west, and they are often referred to as 'flowery'. Well, if Dubya could handle perusing FitzGerald's Omar Khayyam, he would note a tone of nostalgia, a sweet sadness, yet a zest for the moment that permeates Omar's observations of life . . . and death.

Mis-translation of poetic phrases for political purposes can come in handy for hegemonic powers. Interpreting Nostradamus' rather abstract poetry as a blueprint for our times has always been a stretch, yet such an effect has oozed into the subtext of society as far as expectations for 'End Times' are concerned. Never mind the Book of Revelation, which is too obvious to mention here. On a different but nevertheless non-trivial plane, Hugo Chavez' reference to Bush as 'a sulphurous presence' at the UN was in the Latin American tradition of theatricality, something that uptight Americans would take as an insult, rather than a touch of levity. Ahmadinejad is not dabbling with levity, but his statements would be best addressed with subtlety rather than with a sledgehammer.

The thing is, there is no such interest in poetic interpretation in the Bush Machine's tactics. Conquest is on their minds, and it will not go away. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that Bush keep such lies alive. The last thing he wants is conciliatory gestures from Iran. The longing for a new, fresher war he can 'win' is now moving toward high gear. Such a war with Iran could, in the Bush/neocon view, vindicate themselves 'out' of Iraq, as it were. Such grasping for a 'win' in Iran seems to be the final, climactic crap shoot of the Bush Administration. The great question is whether they will or can pull it off. To Bush, Cheney & Co., the stakes are high, but it's go for broke time, baby.

'A jug of oil, a loaf of bread, and thou - and it's on to Teheran!' - presumed battle cry, if Bush reads Omar.

A Little Lecture About Burma That Will Clear Everything Up

Well, hardly. It won't do a thing for the appalling degradation of a rather remarkable nation and culture that's been happening for many a decade now. On the other hand, it could improve western perception of 'the Albania of Asia'. That epithet, by the way, isn't meant to degrade; it merely implies an unknown or underknown subject, in this case, Burma.

When I visited Burma in 1986, it was the 100th anniversary (decidedly NOT celebrated), of the British conquest of Upper Burma. King Thibaw in Mandalay had been deposed, and all of Burma now came under British control. I remember dining in a restaurant in downtown Rangoon and sharing main courses and rice with a fellow American. He was sincere in his admiration for things Burmese, but his nervousness was palpable. 'This place is gonna blow up any minute now,' he said. At the time, I thought I knew what he meant, but I wasn't exactly sure. Something was in the air - or under it. He turned out to be right, but it took about two years to happen. In 1988, all hell broke loose, and then things went back underground. Until, basically, a few weeks ago.

I'm not taking on the whole issue here - that is, the latest unrest in this most unique of countries. But the name game being played out in the western media needs a tad bit of corrective attention if basic understanding of Burma is going to get anywhere, here in the west.

Which name to pick in referring to Burma? Despite being officially unrecognized in the US and the UK, American media seems to prefer 'Myanmar', the name chosen by the ruling junta as an act of defiance to world opinion. Why is this? Apparently, the name 'Burma' is linked to the general notion that it is a product of that country's colonial past. Thus, to be politically correct, the media choose the supposedly 'real' name for Burma: Myanmar, the 'native' name (apparently), the name for a people who threw off the yoke of imperialism and now live in the sunlight of freedom. A name specifically chosen by a corrupt, paranoid and utterly ruthless group of self-serving, not to mention bizarre, military freaks who control their Buddhist subjects by decidedly non-Buddhist methods. That reason alone is sufficient not to honor this spelling preference.

Other Burmese names have also been altered when rendered into Roman script: Irrawaddy, Moulmein, Prome, Rangoon, Pagan, and many others. I won't even bother to show their preposterous 'corrected' versions, spellings that even National Geographic has sucked up to (while retaining some of the previous spellings in parentheses). However, Myanmar as a spelling and a term indeed has legitimacy, as Burma expert David Steinberg has pointed out, but the decision to name the country that was hardly a people's choice.

Ironically, when all is said and done, 'Burma' and 'Myanmar' are pronounced, if you are Burmese, almost exactly the same. The 'm' and 'b' enunciation is subtle, as is the 'r'. In any case, Burma's name in its variations is merely a Romanization and an Anglicizing of the Burmese language and script. It is extracted from one of the world's more cheerful and even playful-looking scripts. Old Burmese hands affectionately say it looks like 'eggnog-eggnog', with its ancient but progressively-graphic lines of interlocked and connected circles. In a more abstract sense, even a chemical formula or calculus problem comes to mind. Further, the junta-official Romanized spelling of 'Myanmar' is 'Myanma'. Say it fast, with imagined subtleties that you think a Burmese speaker might include . . .

Also, I'm awfully darn sick of hearing, hither and yon, that there's no oil or 'anything we want' in Burma, so there's no reason why the US should invade, like we did in Iraq, in order to 'bring democracy' and set the inhabitants free. There IS oil in Burma. In the UK there is an oil company called Burmah (even the Brits streamlined their 19th century spelling to the one we know today), and while Burmah is not particularly associated with Burma any more, Burmese oil is still tapped and is still considerable in its deposits. Vast forest reserves, which are only now really starting to be decimated, make Burma the next grab-zone after Indonesia has been exhausted. Considerable natural gas and mineral deposits also lie within Burmese borders. During the British era, one district up-country was called Ruby Mines. Burmese gems are still a big deal. Also, Burma used to be Asia's largest rice exporter, so this is not a country without self-sufficient potential. It's just that, certainly in a neocon frame of mind, it's potential is not worth fighting over, like Angola, or any number of disadvantaged countries. Burma is also not particularly strategic in US interests. Why spill US blood over it? Like Afghanistan (which IS strategic to US interests), Burma is a major producer of illicit drugs, particularly opium. Remember the Golden Triangle? Most of it is in the Shan States of Burma, a zone similar to the untamed Tribal Areas of the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. There are still ganglords who are running the show who escaped over the hump from China in '49, old Nationalists from the defeated Kuomintang, who have prospered in their fiefdoms of absolute feudal control of these outaback locales. Like Darfur, the US can instantly get sluggish when it doesn't have supersalesmen like Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz to sell a war that interests only them and their corporate superiors.

Maybe I am taking on the whole issue here . . .

The thing is, Burma as a resource country has already been 'claimed' by its surrounding regional powers - mostly China, while Iraq, run by uppity Saddam, who didn't stay bought, with far, far, more oil deposits than puny Burma, was determined by US neocons as up for grabs, and must be claimed before anybody else, whether Iran or China or Russia got grabby.

I also find the 'effort' put into the usage of 'Myanmar' to be quite condescending, even a vestage of colonialism. Perhaps the sentiment is correct: it's 'Thailand' now, not 'Siam'; it's 'Iran' now, not 'Persia'. Nevertheless, it's still 'India' to us, though 'Bharat' is the official name, and 'Hindustan' is used in widespread fashion. Plus, we say 'China' and not 'Chung Kuo', and perhaps the most significant example of western preference: 'Japan' instead of 'Nippon'.

So, unless media mouths are ready to start saying 'Wien' for Vienna, 'Roma' for Rome, 'Sankt Peterburg' for St Petersburg, 'Ciudad Mexico' (with proper pronunciation) for you know what, let's drop the 'Myanmar' preference, and note that name secondarily, and make it clear as to why. Some already have, as they have slowly discovered the truth behind this most flimsy reason to honor a totalitarian government's international gesture.

One final example of the looniness of Burma's military sociopaths. Back in the 70s or thereabouts, Burma, like most formerly British possessions, drove on the left. Out of the blue, an edict came down that all vehicular traffic in the nation would, from the next day forward, keep to the right side of the street. The deed was done, and without question. Now admittedly, Sweden did the same thing, and without one traffic mishap, by the way. But their reasons for doing it were basically pragmatic: to join the rest of continental Europe, and also to sell Volvos and Saabs to growing left-hand drive markets. In Burma, the joke went around that Ne Win, who led the country at the time, was perceived as moving a little too far to the left in his thinking. So, what to do? Make a corrective statement! Move traffic to the right! Statement made. Control established.

Many a politician is wont to say today that to do something, it should be done because it's morally right. Well, it's morally right to call Burma 'Burma'. And the thing is, it really is. One of Buddhism's chief tenets is right action. For those who are repressed in Burma, it still is.

Barney's Got It

He's One Of U.S. Now

Nationalist Perverse Radio strikes again! American media of all kinds just loves Chris(topher) Hitch(ens). That voice, that erudition, that sophistication! And he's American! Yup, just tied the knot with US citizenship, so he's got a right to say 'us' and 'our' instead of 'you Americans', etc.

Well Chris, I lived in the UK for two years, and exotic you ain't. If fact, Chris is viewed as rather banal in his ex-country. Idea! Glom onto the US of A and do a road show. Keep 'em coming. Out-do the Americans at their own game, but slather on the Brit refinement and wow 'em with your vocab. Hey, they loved Tony B's performances every time, it's a sure bet. So Chris plays the morose-but-infinitely-urbane pooh-bear role, and no one can touch him. He can even inspire gullible young boys to go fight his wars, and only a droll, pudgy response is called for. What a deal!

Chris has always aspired to the level of Robt. Hughes or James Wolcott, but his pint-sized packages of deeply disappointing dart-throwing signify that our civilization really is in decline. And at those points in history, there's always been big bucks in filing past the remains and mounting pretentious commentary on all that went wrong. Hitchie (and I won't dignify any referral to Chris as 'Hitch' as that is the exclusive property of Alfred Hitchcock) is going for the gold NOW, before the full-scale dottering sets in.

There used to be a dignified tradition of Brits becoming Americanized (e.g. Alistair Cooke; the other Christopher - Isherwood, et al), but now we only get their left-overs.

Give me your burn-outs, your washed-ups and your third-string rejects...

A Long, Long Way From 'Long Dong Silver', But Look Who's Bringing It Up Again!

That's right - Clarence Thomas! The most obscure of the Nine Old Personages now sitting on the Super-Supreme Court has written a memoir for the big bucks. Now we can re-live one of our nation's most tedious sagas, in which equality finally arrives on the high bench, not of the racial kind (Thurgood Marshall beat you to it, Clarence, and with distinction), but for once, a justice will be as medicre a mind as many of those he is trying.

The chief highlights in Clarence's 'trial' though, are the dandy references to that classic 'first date' film (perhaps suggested by Travis Bickle), 'Long Dong Silver'.

Clarence has always struck me as an opportunist who's always trying to come across as the Tom Robinson character in 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. Despite that character's legitimacy as a victim (framed for supposedly raping a white woman), Clarence plays the victim card every time, especially in his recent '60 Minutes' interview. He may not have had Greg Peck to defend him, but he had Poppy Bush to champion him, PLUS he got the white woman to marry in the end. What's he complaining about?? I know, I know, it's a great American touchy subject, but the obviousness of Clarence's grandstanding (in order to sell a book), is contemptible, especially in light of ongoing racial problems in this country. Speaking of contemptible, Michael Medved (who's actually more sickening than Michael 'Savage' Weiner) wrote a 6-point essay saying that slavery in America wasn't really that bad! Clarence, you've come a long way, baby...

Ick. Just Ick.

As you very well know, the thing on the right in this Duo-Portrait Plate above is Derek - I mean Debbie - Cagan, who does stuff under Bob Gates in the Imperial War Dept. But have you seen the suave side of the Cagan? You will if you pan over to the left and behold the distinguished profile therein. She's in her 'Snidely Whiplash' mode, and is just about to attach a vaudeville mustache (unfortunately concealed by the dark background) to the region above her mouth with spirit gum. Her hobbies include fantasizing she's a silent movie matinee villain, publically (and privately) hating Iranians, as well as standing in dark exterior doorways, waiting for anybody to take flash snapshots whilst she is applying waxy foundational makeup and cold, scummy hair oils.

One Week On: And I'm Not Referring To Columbia Pictures

More yaks concerning Columbia Univ. Prez Leee! Bollinger. As Fredric March said to Spence Tracy in 'Inherit the Wind' when referring to a pesky and cynical reporter (Gene Kelly), 'I don't like that fella.' It's true, gang, I don't care a fig for Bollinger. He has shown that he is the same kind of megalomaniac that he attempts to either coddle (the Pervster Musharraf) or roast (Ahmadinejad). Dean Martin he ain't, but that Captain Kangaroo hairstyle is almost as attention-getting as his whacked-out vanity show of 'telling off' his Iranian guest. Bollinger is a perfect example of the neocon dream of dumbing-down academia and replacing its thinking heads with ambitious corporate/power-mad CEO types, who can pose, especially in the spotlight of the media, as liberally artistic, free speechifying democratizers. Instead of applying wisdom and insight to the occasion by letting Ahmadinejad play himself, state his case, and then open a 'frank and cordial' dialogue, Bollinger botched the whole thing by turning it into a crude strut of egotistical self-righteousness which ended up sounding like a Soviet show trial. What an amateur-hour bozo. No, what an ASSHOLE! His haughtiness reminds me of his probable buddy and fellow failure, Paul Wolfowitz.

The Kinetics Of Metrics

On Neocon Propaganda Radiation's 'Morning Edition', Ga-Ga-Guy Raz-amataz gave a curious and semi-maddening/semi-interesting report today about the Baghdad base airport ('second busiest in the world'). On one side he was doing his typical gosh-golly-gee-whiz-drooling-
marveling over military hardware in action, and on the other, he was at least showing the extent of what is going on at this particular airport on a daily basis. It was actually informative! Also, in a few instances, Raz actually seemed to distance himself (for once) from the seduction of the military show-offs (i.e. stressing the quotes around the term 'surge'), and letting the one military man he interviews show his true colors. By that I mean: when the officer talks about bombing, he notes that innocent Iraqis are often killed or injured. When he says, 'and we're sorry about that', he does so with a smile and almost a chuckle, like a little kid who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Life is cheap in Iraq, especially for the non-combatant cannon fodder caught in 'kinetic' activities. In a roundabout way, I'm grateful to Raz for playing that brief interview. Even a contemptible enterprise such as war can have touches of humanity, but when you run a high-tech, mechanized machine where the principal product is industrial-strength bombing, and for every 'insurgent' you take out, 2-3 non-combatants are either killed or injured, humanity sinks to a new low.

And Furthermore...

Columbia's Bollinger didn't have to go into details regarding our relationship with Iran. His childish and churlish introduction was all about tone, not problem-solving. He was also catering to a certain constituency regarding Iran. I'm not talking about Jewish/Israeli protesters. There are many, many disaffected Iranians in this country who came over after 1979, who were part of the Shah's machine. They want 'their' Iran back. Just like the disaffected Cubans in Florida want 'their' Cuba back. Most of the media emphasis has been placed on the emotional Iran vs. Israel issues, but the real stakes in this game are who's going to 'get' Iran and its tremendous wealth. One of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq was to secure economic control of that nation's resources, and as a stepping stone in achieving the same with Iran. What better to approach this goal by taking cheap and over-obvious shots at an easy target, such as the current Iranian president, who we all know full well is no dictator because he does not have pure dictatorial powers. He is, however, a convenient target for a variety of reasons.

Also, we are not engaging Iran directly. Instead we engage in a coy and elusive game of teasing the Iranians on the premise that they are, as a nation, a terrorist organization. Nothing they say is to be believed anyway, so we will not dignify ourselves by talking with them. If Condi or Bush himself dared to fly to Teheran and engage in person, that could short-circuit a lot of the Iranian bravado. The Americans are purposefully timid because they don't WANT conciliatory gestures from Iran. They don't care what Khamenei says. They do, however, care very much about what Ahmadinejad says, the more outrageous and threatening the better. I have even thought that Ahmadinejad is on the CIA payroll, just to keep things stirred up. The neocon strategy requires keeping Iran hostile so that there will be high purpose in 'taking back Iran'. Even something so trivial as Lee Bollinger's rant against his guest is extremely valuable in sustaining this strategy. This situation has to be examined holistically. Getting hung up on the Iranian president's blather, meant to annoy, is as worthwhile as taking the utterances of 'Reverend' Fred Phelps as gospel. Ahmadinejad may be a head of state, but so is Bob Mugabe, and we all know what a creep he is. Ahmadinejad gets a lot of flak for smiling as he's being interviewed (e.g. white knight Scott Pelley's comment on '60 Minutes'), but how many times has Bush smirked his way through an interview? Americans who think they're right about everything usually cannot tolerate 'the pot calling the kettle black' when it might apply to them.

Yeah, I Don't Particularly Like Mr Ahmadinejad Either, But . . .

. . . Columbia U's prez Lee Bollinger's extreme egotism in attempting to Castro-ize Ahmadinejad was nothing short of the official Bush line of refusing to deal diplomatically with Iran. He obviously wants to be known as THE hero who told off the Iranian president, a bold and courageous act which could garner him the post of Sec'y of Education in the pathetic, waning months of the Bush Administration. Bollinger's trumped up tin-type righteousness was as laughable as his demi-Frank Luntz hair style.

Truly mature leaders would write off half of Ahmadinejad's pronouncements rather than getting all wigged-out about them. Leaders of all types constantly say stupid things. Talk is cheap. Adolescent snottiness has replaced dignified statesmanship.

Leave General Petraeus Alone AGAIN! Do You Hear??

I know you've probably seen this Special Heartbreaking Presentation many times, but give it another try. Because, people, it's time to LEAVE GENERAL PETRAEUS ALONE!

Randomness In This, The PETRÆVS EPOCH

We've had some time now to sullenly frolic in the sordid stew that is the sole detritus that remains from the epic of Petrævs Week recently wrapped. So, what about some 'here-and-there' thoughts to wobble forth with?

1. I am reminded of the many details of the important and scandalous story of Dubya The Dubious' dubious military record. And I rejoice at Dan Rather's lawsuit slammed at CBS and Viacom, and that sneaky fossil Sumner Redstone. I've read even at other progressive blogs, people bitching that 'what took Rather so long' to file a lawsuit. Egads, we should be grateful that somebody who was actually on the inside of the corporate press is now stepping up to the plate. Quite frankly, I'm happy to be in the 'Go, Dan, Go!' crowd. The mainstream media (MSM) and other assorted dimbulbs can continue to stew in their own sour grape juice, while others with guts outshine them.

2. A note about an NPR hack in old Baghdad, reporting on the recent toxic Blackwater puddle tragedy. I was sick of NPR's gal-in-Green-Zone-combat Anne Garrels long ago. I don't care what percentage of her reportage is valid. That affected 'tough' voice delivery betrays a person who's having the time of her life, diggin' every downbeat story like it's better than sex. She's like those journos that Robert Young Pelton talks about in 'The World's Most Dangerous Places', that's all fucked up from trying to be heroic and humanitarian at the same time. Pulizer-diggers, I'd call them.

You can tell she digs the Blackwater trip, too. I'm sure many of the embedded ones have huge crushes on those psycho Christian soldiers.

3. As my daily Neocon Propaganda Radiation exposure is less than 15 minutes per day, I greatly appreciate Mytwords at 'NPR Check' ignoring the Geiger-counter clicks and daring to do his insightful summaries.

As the broadcasts grind on, I might have to 'suit up' to keep myself protected, even at my minimal exposure level!

4. The Great American Appetite for B.S. came to a new high with the Petraeus 'crock' that was laid before the nation. As Bill Maher said to Wolf Blitzer, Petraeus 'is performing a political function for the White House.' I don't know why that concept is so hard for the media to grasp, other than that continual slurp of grade 'A' bullshit is just too savory to deny one's hungry gullet.

So you know what? I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to LEAVE GENERAL PETRAEUS ALONE. (See way above.)

Don Doesn't Do Regret But Don Does Taos

Well, I read that GQ interview with Donny Rummy, and it was a fine portrait of a professional two-dimensional personality. One of those guys who is, I guess, so ordinary and unpretentious in his real life so as to make us think he couldn't possibly be a high-level switch thrower and power-monger, let alone evil. He cares about calves and old dairy records, and he's got a canny and appealing wife whom he loves, so I guess, my goodness, he's human after all.

He doesn't even seem to be beholden to anybody, least of all, Dubya. As a Prime Neocon, Rummy would appear not overly loyal to the cause.

All these guys (e.g. the Neocon Concern) appear to be in cahoots with one another, but they're all essentially rivals, too. It can't be stressed too much that the main techniques in attaining and holding power in America are Mafia-style in their nature. That's what runs the show now. That's what we've evolved into. The stakes are so high that democracy, or attempts at it, is pushed aside by more powerful and scheming mafia or fascist forces. We have plenty of evidence of this.

Also, the public should be firmly aware that everything about Rummy and his kind is about performance. It is not possible, based on their deeds, to take them at face value. Falseness is part of their very being. Here's Rummy on the plane with the GQ reporter, acting like the genial, folksy, even sitcom-type grandad that you may not like, but by golly, he's so normal, how could you not respect him? That's why I call him two-dimensional. On the surface, he's a performer, as vacuous as a forgettable TV actor. His third dimension, where the action of his agenda is located, is totally occult, and he knows how to keep it hidden. What else can be said about somebody whose record is well-known, and whose responses, like 'I'm not gonna go there', are nothing short of implications in his crimes?

Like Petraeus, Rumsfeld is a machine. Part of the Bush Machine. They perform the needed job without too many complications. Others, like Wolfowitz and Perle, are even more hideous, for they pretend to be philosophers, so as to show the way ahead. Their attitudes of haughtiness and war profiteering lie at the very bottom of the human experience.

For Rummy, I think that this strict management of his third dimension has a lot to do with self-preservation, too. It isn't just a performance issue.
Don's just as two-dimensional as ever. But it's proof that he is indeed human. What could be more human than self-denial? If he ever actually examined his third dimension and truly appreciated the venality therein, he'd have to blow his own brains out.

The Passion Of Pet-Crock

I have never seen such a lifeless performance. Dainty congresspeople were so amazed at their stamina, but I have to say, the Dave Petraeus and Ry Crocker Show was a signal example of Bush Machines in action. Yes, machines. Audioanimatronics, pioneered by the Disney folks in that memorable 'It's a small world' show at the 1964 NY World's Fair, started it all.

Now, with Condi, Gonzo, and Miss Dana (Press Sec-in-waiting), the android art has reached a new apogee of perfection. Dave and Ry, the latest models, may only be capable of one expression - Dave's being mindless efficiency, and Ry's being George-H-W-Bush-before-he-vomited-on-the-Japanese-prime-minister, but the Spew Factor just goes and goes and goes, and in gentlemanly fashion, too!

How many times were they thanked for their service! How many times did they blankly respond! No passion to spend in the first place, they do not feel, they do not comprehend, they merely perform.

As purveyors of the Bush Machine's Hollow Optimism (TM), Dave and Ry can state, in their trademark dull tones, 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'.

He Speaks The Future

Indeed, a Triumph will be required! And a coronation, for we are, at this moment, listening, and seeing, through the miracle of the Internets, our future Leader and Teacher, our future Imperator. Wes Clark, Bowell Powell, and even Jebber, eat your hearts out!
HAIL PETRAEVS! NOW!

He will be our first President to be born in the 1950s.

I mean Emperor - Dave the First. Laurel leaves look good on generals.

He speaks of America's NEW Greatest Generation. And he will lead it.

Like, WHERE?

He Came And His Mike Didn't Work

If he were really a great general, his oration could be heard by all, mike-less, as Caesar did! He had booster amps in his balls.

And He Came, And They Hailed Him Like No Other

Have you not heard? Did you not know? PETRAEVS comes! He enters the Capitol, citizens! Hail! Tidings of Victory in our Eastern Provinces!

Never was news so eagerly anticipated! Never were the hearts of men so ready to plan the future, based on these few words from this simple but enlightened man, this general, this HERO, in which the flame of genius burns brightly!

Oh, where is Persia, General? Show us the way!

Keep your distance, ye Brutuses, ye Cassius-types, with your lean and hungry looks! Remain in the shadows, and gaze out to see what a real hero is: PETRAEVS MAXIMVS!

A Benchmark

Overarching this wacky week that was: the Larry Craig Saga! Larry gets the esteemed Michael Jackson-cum-Paris Hilton Award for Entertainer of the Week - in the midst of the surrounding carnage.

I Finally Have Larry All Figured Out

Here's really what happened to US Senator Larry Craig in that Minnesota airport loo. It all makes so much sense now.

At least Larry didn't attempt the Thom McAn Shuffle in his own state of Idaho. And because he's not gay, he must have just been checking if any blue state weirdo was trying to 'pull' anything. That's what Larry was doing, gang! His OWN undercover work! A pre-emptive strike! He was simply exercising the Bush Doctrine. How do you like THAT, Larry-haters?

Whatever Are We Going To Do With Michael?

LEADERS!
Great Leaders Are Not Born. They Copy Other Leaders.

Really, gang, now why shouldn't Mikey Chertoff become our new Attorney General? Let's give Pre-Rot Skullface a chance! If Mikey were to become AG, just think of the full year of fun we'd have! I for one would be keen on seeing Mikey's full, majestic rage unleashed, which is currently kept covert behind the Homemade Insecurity Dept.'s gentle facade. It would be a pretty grand show, cuz AGs get to go apeshit more often than strong 'n silent security types do.

Mikey's got that totally rad sci-fi sinister protagonist visage, which he displays with unabashed vigah. Unhappily, his squeezed-pressure-vessel voice is a BIG disappointment, but that can easily be media-morphed into a baleful bellow at the mere twist of an audio-tweaking digital toggle!

In addition, examine the semi-colour plate above. As Chief Martial Law Administrator (aka AG), Comrade Chertoffski will be as heroic, as effective, and as gloriously lookalike as Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov!

So, think about the Mikey Option, Dear Dicktator Dubya! Millions of sci-fi geeks'll love ya for it! And 'tis love that you need right now.

Larry Craig Straightens Things Out

"I want to thank you all for coming out today..."
- Larry Craig, at his recent Boise Press Conference In The Bright Idahoan Sun of Truth

Go, Gonzo, Go. Now GO!

I grudgingly have to admit, I heard of Gonzo's resignation first on Neocon Public Relations. You know, Mourning Edition (ME invariably puts me in a bad mood; and that's a pretty mournful fact). I was about to indulge in an NPR-less morn, but then, annoyingly, decided to flip it on, and a mucus-voiced Inskeeper was rattling out the (good?) news.

And few people do fussy, nasaly delivery better than Ari Shapiro, who was positively fluttery today, as if he, by his show-offy prancings in that tinny, narrow, suffocatingly-awful voice, actually had a stake in Gonzo's waddling off of the blighted Bushique stage.

Speaking of Ari, that other Ari of note, Fleischer, has surfaced again - possibly for air, after years-long submersion in the sewery sump of shadowy bargain Bush basement life - to give us a powerful (in the perfidious sense) series of pep-talk ads that do nothing but contribute to the subversive and floating anxiety that is so mentally retarding this country.

So that's how I found out about Alberto.
NPR's very ease of accessibility is one of its most alarming factors. It's that damn convenience thing.

My farewell message to Gonzo is, as Porky Pig would say: Get out! Out! OUT!! OUT!!! OUT!!!!!!!!!!!

Getting The Dosage Right

Most of my yakkings about NPR are now based on a 15 minute-or so daily dosage of dreariness. This morning it was Corey Flintstone's turn, giving his 'take' on Iran's 'toxic' influence on Iraq. Corey's delivery has always bugged me. He usually sounds like an 8th-grader who wants to convince you that his matchbook collection is cooler than yours. His word emphasis is completely mucked up, and it's all an affectation, because I've heard him talk quite normally and acceptably. That's a big problem with these NPR lifers, who feel they have to project a certain 'personality' to be 'interesting.' Nevertheless, I have to admit, in his Iraq stories, he does attempt some depth of understanding, or at least exploration of his subject that the usual neo-NPR suspects aren't capable of. However, this is just a style observation. I have to leave it to others, such as the NPR Check blog, to sift the substance out of the style.

Quite frankly, sometimes I feel embarrassed that I'm devoting so much attention to something so worthless as Neocon Propaganda Radio's style. I have to justify a certain amount of it though, as I'm interested in the progression of persuasive media, and a lot of the persuasion has to do with shiny superficiality, which NPR has in abundance. As we all know, it's that sheer abundance that makes exposure to NPR so soul-damaging. So, a mantra results: 'Keep the dosage low, keep the dosage low, lower, lower, still lower...'

Things Most Needful

One major imperative remains for the Bush/Cheney regime: to de-stabilize Iran as a regional power of consequence.

A 'sympathy vote' for Israel might be just as potent in selling a strike on Iran as 'bringing democracy' or 'WMD' were in the Iraq disaster.

Intentionally incomplete reports, in the form of propaganda, sent via NPR to 'thinking' audiences, are more valuable than a week of Rush Limbaugh rantings. If 'thinking' people, such as higher education types, where much of NPR's audience lies, can be brought on board with certain issues, then a significant battle to contain intellectualism will have been won. Condi, my good buddy Wolfie, and Freddy 'Fats' Kagan, and many others are all products of the Neocon 'intellectual freedom' which might be so effectively spread through Academia via conduits such as NPR.

So, two imperatives stand out for the Neocons:
1. Take out Iran while the iron is hot.
2. Take in NPR as an 'innocuous' tool to mold 'thinking' peoples' minds.

We must fasten our seatbelts securely.

The New Concept Of What Center-Left Actually Means Now

Yesterday I heard this guy, a guy called Guy, Guy Raz, on this 'All Thingies Considered-ed' show, which plays every, every day on Neocon Public Radio. He made a statement about the Brookings Institute being 'center-left'. I thought, y'know, that's what many think NPR itself is.

I wonder if projectile vomiting from distant locations can reach the Green Zone of NPR?

Karl Rove Defeats Effete-ism

You all know about K-carl's statement on K-crush Limbaugh, in which he lashed out at Dubya's critics, branding them as “sort of elite, effete snobs who can’t hold a candle to this guy.” Powerful stuff from Rapper Rove, who's about to embark on his next awesome mission sequence: prepping the wrecking ball for Hillarykins' razing, and prepping Jebber for '12.

But - but - but, a thought strikes me! So dreadful I scarcely dare give it utterance! But I must: is the true Connecticut Yankee soul of Dubya not revealed whenever he enunciates one particular word? And the word is: 'rather'. It comes out as a very un-HouTex-like 'rawther'. Rawther like the swish, effete, upper-crusty, powder-blue-blooded, gilded-aged pigboy types he and KR castigate, yet deep down in his innermost of sanctums, he remains? Just a . . . thought . . .

Padilla, Padalla...

The Bush Machine & Associated Interests Inc. need a sacrificial chicken in order to show that The Intergalactic War On Terror is indeed being won by The Righteous Ones.

Everyone's A Critic

Am I saying stuff about NPR that's too nasty?

Why, why NO!
No, I am not. Honest!

While I certainly admire civility in communication, I don't think it's too great a sin to be somewhat cutting when it comes to NPR's performance. After all, they are in the broadcasting business (more business-like than ever), and the P in NPR still stands, perhaps ostensibly, for 'public'. Anyone in public life or business has to be prepared for criticism. To my mind, that's the chief reason for this blog. I criticize NPR out of frustration, disappointment, and sometimes anger. Not because I want everything my way, but because all indications show that NPR isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing, and much evidence shows that they're cooperative with certain agendas in play in this country right now. That and other reasons make them worthy of criticism.

So I say, let it fly.

That said, responding to an earlier comment, I do indeed think NPR News' attempts in cultural matters are at times worse than their political coverage. Too many examples to note here, but to cite only one, I heard the gooey Liane Hansen and the occasional NPR film music 'maven' Andy Trudeau suavely yakking about the score to 'High Noon' on a recent Sunday morning. I don't want to bore anyone with my take on their mediocre ramblings, though Trudeau is no idiot when he's talking strictly about film scoring, but he plainly dumbs everything down for Liane and her listeners. The thing is, these NPR lifers usually muck up a potentially interesting segment by inflicting their unappealing personalities into every aspect of the subject at hand. This process is sometimes overt, and sometimes passive-aggressive. Liane had to put in her tiresome baby-boomer two cents, especially when she responded with disdain to Ray Conniff's quite sophisticated version of the theme song. Scarcely anything was said about the composer himself, Dimitri Tiomkin, one of cinema's more fascinating characters, or the evolution of 'High Noon' in the midst of McCarthyism. I'm dissecting this to such an extent because, while I applaud anyone who takes on interesting and esoteric subjects, I'm just amazed how the NPR treatment tends to end up with such a low common denominator. But of course that's expecting too much. Well, you can't please every listener, that's for sure, but the poor quality of many of their cultural probings is only indicative of the limitations of the personnel involved. That's only one reason why I don't treat NPR News as a finger-on-the-pulse cultural source. As we know, good and valuable cultural coverage certainly exists elsewhere on public radio, depending on the station. That’s why I’m referring specifically to NPR News here.

Style note: as I write this, I have ATC on in the background. Missy Melissa (Block) is interviewing the Gov. of Minnesota about the recent and awful bridge collapse. She is talking in a fairly normal, non-cutesy manner (mainly because she isn't smirk-smiling as usual while she's talking). Now this is a serious subject, so she's not acting overtly cute, which means, she can talk without affectation if she wants to. That's what I mean by NPR persons inflicting their personalities on listeners. It's not responsible broadcasting!!

Today's Verdict On NPR

The facts show that:
- NPR just isn't a dependable, reliable news source any more.
- Corporate and other influences have brought to bear their agendas on NPR.
- They no longer fulfill their public mandate.
- They cater to a select audience.
- They conduct themselves like a commercial operation.
- Their approach is personality-based rather than informational.
- They have fully embraced entertainment and other attention-getting devices in their news shows.
- Their use of consultants and contributors is extremely limited, and is indicative of specific agendas.
- Their interpretation of news stories is also indicative of specific agendas and outlooks.
- Their objectivity and neutrality is extremely questionable.

And that's just a mild, preliminary assessment.

Speaking for myself, NPR is not a valid news source. Rather, it has become a victim of its own dubious development, worthy only of critical observation, but not of serious consideration. Good and helpful offerings still exist on NPR, of course, but the overarching credibility which should be guiding it is gone.

The truth must be sought elsewhere.

This, This Mathew Continetti-Type Person

It's interesting how this dude, recently seen on C-SPAN, not only apes his care-giver Bill 'Howdy-Doody' Kristol's brain waves, he's even been very successful in adopting the same speaking mannerisms. Like, that obvious way he's restraining himself from becoming OVERTLY snotty, but rattling along in that fake-modesty style, hesitating oh-so-slightly, so that he won't come off as too conceited, while trying to act serious at the same time.

I'd like to put in a word about the term 'chickenhawk'. I know that when it is applied to abominations such as this Continetti person, it implies cowardice, and I totally agree. But in the bird world, a chickenhawk is an aggressive hawk that nabs chickens and the like. I prefer SISSYHAWK as a label for this guy. Sissyhawks are aggressive fakes that pride themselves on spewing gobbledegook, but in fact are deeply unhappy people who are inflicting their self-loathing on others with a vengeance. Fat Fluffy Freddie Kagan, who 'designed' the Surge Flop, is another. They tend to be verbally adept, at least by mainstream media standards ('just fill the time slot, baby. Oh, and be fluent . . .') and they attempt techniques of intellectual intimidation.

Matt Continetti - welcome to the media fast lane! And prepare to get seared, roasted, broasted and mocked into obscurity.

A Startling New Late-Date Strategy

Neocon Public Radio Makes Me A Sullen Camper. Or Does It?

Yeah, I know, why subject myself to National Public Radiation when it makes me so, so snarly? Maybe we can dispense with that question for the moment, because I don't have a good answer.

I may have said this before, but I think I have a higher tolerance right now because I have apparently 'evolved'. Not necessarily to a higher plane, but rather to a different stage of some kind. In short, I'm trying to look at NPR, the popular media, and the political scene in general with more of a scientific bent instead of an emotional one. If NPR be a mutating wad of smallpox cells down there in the Petri dish, well, I can certainly hover above it with magnifying glass and an eyedropper of bleach instead of planting my snout right into it and inhaling deeply, can't I? How else could the myriad of progressive observers, from David Corn to Chris Hedges to Noam Chomsky to Juan Cole handle the toxicity? They're scientists, that's how, and they're armed with the proper tools to not only protect themselves, but they're well prepared in keeping certain epidemics at bay. At least they’re trying to.

There's so much excellent and purposeful progressive material out there today, from books and articles to interviews and documentaries, that the right wingers can't keep up with all of it, and they certainly can't prove hardly any of it wrong. They just continue what they've always done: keeping truths obfuscated and keeping the fear up through sensationalism, denial, banal language, and basic lying.

One of the reasons I follow NPR is that it's certainly accessible and convenient. That's why radio found its place in the media world a long time ago. Tech development has essentially topped out, so it's all about content. That's one of the principal reasons why NPR was hijacked by the corporate world, aided and abetted by the neocon superstructure of like-minded groups and individuals. From my slightly-more-than-casual absorption of NPR, I think that neocon interests (a general term, naturally) have appropriated NPR simply because it reaches a demographic group which they covet. We know that neocon theory sprang from academia, but only a small wedge of it. In the 'lunge' mentality of corporate greed, (that wants what it wants and it wants it NOW), the hijacking of NPR has been very effective in wriggling its way into the educated elite of America that still purportedly 'thinks'. For those of you out there who work in academia (or 'academe', as the cooler ones say), how often do you hear 'I heard it on NPR . . .' as opposed to 'I saw it on Fox News . . .'?

Anyway, I get the feeling that neocon interests are very serious about roping in the middle class higher-educated crowd, not so much the frustrated and aging baby boomers (although they're handy for becoming more conservative the older they get), but of course the younger ones, who are infinitely more malleable and comfortable with a 'dumber-downed' society. After all, tomorrow belongs to them.

On the other hand, we could soon encounter a full-blown Iraq Effect, in which a whole damaged generation of young people finds itself compelled to go in different directions than any neocon or corporate entity wants. We shall see what that might entail soon enough, I should think . . .

And now for some petty little NPR-isms from recent mornings:

Saturday: Scott Simon interviewed Al Gore and showed himself to be much cooler than Ozone Man (remember that?) could ever be. I can't imagine squandering an opportunity to have a meaningful interview more. Scottie's in his own world, and more criticism than usual must be getting to him, because he's more and more defensive all the time. I notice that he closed his commentary segment with 'an old friend' singing lyrics about the Chicago Cub(bies) not having won a pennant 'since we dropped the bomb on Japan'. We're supposed to chuckle, of course. 'They chuckle,' Wallace Shawn rightly pointed out, when he was referring to neocons, Bushoids, and other sociopaths, who are so out of touch with reality that Marie Antoinette appears a radical socialist. Like the Wizard of Oz, they chuckle at catastrophe. But as we found out, the Wizard was only a man behind a curtain.

Sunday: Scott Horsely did a piece on Ghouliani in Florida, that was nothing short of a love-fest. To say that the mayor 'stood up to terrorism' as a pat explanation for his virtue to be president, was nothing more than a sycophant's planning ahead to make a bid for the press secretary slot in a Rudy Administration. Ghouliani did nothing that a reasonably competent person in the mayorship wouldn't have done in a 9/11 situation. Nothing. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that he mucked much of it up. Obfuscation . . . keep the fear up . . . wah-de-doo-dah . . .

Doyle McManus from the 'LA Times' is one of many who are STILL making a big deal out of how long Bill Clinton's speeches were. They are still so bemused. Who says Attention Deficit Disorder is limited to little kids? He also referred to the ex-pres as 'too big to hide'. Uh, was he referring to Bill's (much trimmer) physical bulk, or his political standing? Funny! Funny! Droll. But funny! He recited this little quip with a smile on his face, and it had a rather smuggy effect that always seems to -

[INTERJECTION: MY SCIENTIFIC APPROACH EVAPORATES AND MY EMOTIONS OF TURMOIL RETURN WHENEVER I HEAR NPR PERSONS GO ON SPEAKING WHEN THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE A SMILE ON THEIR FACE; THE SELF-PLEASURING THEY ARE INFLICTING ON WE LISTENERS IS NOTHING SHORT OF PERVERSE; I CAN DISSECT THIS ISSUE NO FURTHER NOW - I MUST RETURN TO 'SCIENTIFIC' MODE!!]

Ahem - well, those darn NPR-oids really know how to bug me, don't they? As Bush Senior would say in that slightly delicate way he had, 'Well for heaven's sake!'

Anyway, another thing: NPR's 'FBI Correspondent' Dina Temple-Raston tells Bob Smith about British surveillance cameras. She mentioned that sometimes such cameras can be used for spotting 'hot-looking women' and 'very good-looking' young ladies! She also said that 'the film' in video cameras can be used at evidence. Film/video - get it? Petty, I know.
Comical, though.

Lastly: I get such a kick - in fact, it makes me CHUCKLE - when some reporter or expert is about to deliver or has just delivered his/her spiel on some horrible, horrible subject, (say, Afghan civilians getting blown apart by US - er, NATO - air raids, or somethin' like that . . .) and when they're thanked for their contribution, they say 'My pleasure'. Ah, the pure pleasure of being in the Olympian clouds of today's exciting world of journalism!

- later

Spending The 4th At NPR

I was half asleep when NPR did their patriotic duty and divvied up the Declaration of Independence for recitation amongst its usual all-stars. They read their bits with a self-importance that was, well, very NPR-like. Predictable, to say the least.

Anyway, a friend of mine, who listened more carefully than I did, noted that many of the complaints about George III, which make up much of the Declaration, can be handily applied to our own modern day (King) George. She wondered if some of the readers, judging from the tone of their voices, were picking up on this irony. Could there be a few covert 'liberals' at NPR, who exercise their subversive agendas by injecting a little sly 'satire' here and there?

It was all an early morning blur. Truth to tell, I was subconsciously distracted by the term 'Nina Totenbag', which was, I think, being marketed before all those references to the Kings George.

One admirable moment occurred amidst this dreary NPR soup. A marine who'd been in Iraq read his poem, 'The Cat'. It was simple, moving and profound in its anti-war message. After he finished the reading, all empty-headed Renee said was, 'Thank you for reading that.' Her use of the word 'that' to refer to this sensitive and powerful poem struck me as dismissive rather than appreciative. I guess this awkwardness was better than having her make some banal comment. Better to be left with the poem's power, and its message than to be returned to NPReality, with a thud. The inevitable musical interlude (which are more obnoxiously pushy than they used to be, no doubt to attract hipper listeners) accomplished that task without any voice pollution.

It was a few days before the 4th, but I can't leave off without commenting on Scott Simon's eagerly-anticipated return to Weekend Edition Saturday. We knew he'd have something to say about the joys of being an adoptive dad for the second time. We knew that it would be syrupy, perhaps intolerably so. We were right. Only Scottie can turn something wonderful into something so - so, I don't know - repulsive.

One good thing about Morning Edition: it's all over by 8AM at the latest. You can get on with your day with a spring in your step because, by surviving it, you actually dodge a bullet. You didn't commit some act of rage or crack open a bottle of Smirnoff as means of reaction or escape. You simply walk away.

And Paul Came Once More Unto His Homeland

From the World Bank to the American Enterprise Institute, Wolfie now hangs his comb amongst hearty comrades.

The AEI: where homely, unsavory ersatz 'intellectuals' can gather, pose, preen, and indulge in their fascist fantasies, realizing them through mafia tactics via bozos like Dubya & Co., who are easy pushovers as far as the neocons are concerned. The stupefying egotism of Wolfie and his kind truly smacks of delusional grandeur. Like Hitler (everyone's favorite Worst Person Ever comparison), the neocons' 'philosophy' remains mired in primitive mediocrity, where banal and recessive 'theorizing', based on sullen revenge and greed, is grossly mistaken for forward-thinking preservation and protection policy.

Watch out: now Paulie can collude with Fat Fluffy Freddy Kagan (the bestest-selling 'author' of The Surge), on their next Excellent Psychopathic Adventure: to take a dump in Ahmadinejad's private toilet, and then order the former President of Iran to flush it. Think of the glory!

Would you buy a used war from this man?:

http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all,scholarID.99/scholar.asp

Cute, ain't he? And so well-spoken, too! I hope he and Paul don't get too jealous of one another. The business of dictating policy to the Bushoids probably gets pretty rivalrous sometimes. But hell, Paul's got so much experience under his belt (which supports hidden body armor at all times), he'll no doubt outclass Fat Freddy every time.

You CAN go home again, Paul. Come, take up the President's ear once again, and change the world!

Coming To The Vast Sudan: NeoCon NeoColonialism!

I

Tuesday morn and another Gwen Thompkins item on NPR's 'Morning Edition. I'll try to be brief. Her 'notebook' story's premise: her passport was kept for a long time in a small town in Sudan, and jazz music from New Orleans saved the day. Why I find her reports troubling: Gwen herself perfectly embodies the NPR target audience. Educated, with grad degrees, comfortable income, plus, a well-cultivated Amero-centric point of view. That last bit is the real problem, and it's so glaring in her reports. Thing is, listeners are supposed to 'identify' with her, and in the process, objective journalism is abandoned. Colloquializing the world at large for this specific audience is not only imprudent, it is a recipe for disaster. This approach also fits well with the neo-con vision of the world, the sinister elements of which seek to take advantage of these supposedly 'informed' listeners. Subject for a thesis, I guess, but when I hear reports such as Thompkins makes from such a troubled area of the world, its frighteningly easy to identify trouble in the making.

II

Just another observation about Gwen Thompkins' Amero-centric expectations. She seemed incredulous that no one in a small town in Sudan (that she talked to) was familiar with jazz music.

Hell, I was talking to an all-American 20 year-old student the other day, and I happened to mention Jerry Lewis (the still-active comedian, not the congressman). 'Who's that?' they replied. I also heard of a survey that was taken in the UK in which it was found that more young people were familiar with Sinatra than they were with Mick Jagger. The Info Age has its quirks!


Naive Amero-centrics are always blown away when they find their much-vaunted culture isn't quite as widespread as they thought it was. That aside, there is a subtext that I get from Thompkins' reports. It creaks of neo-con colonialism. These benighted people do not have jazz. We will bring it to them. They do not have democracy. We will bring it to them. Whether they want it or not, because we know best.

Additionally, there is another factor regarding Sudan. I read in Robert Young Pelton's 'The World's Most Dangerous Places' that Sudan is sitting on a vast reserve of oil. If that's true, get set for another neo-con petri dish to be opened up.

NPR: A Place For Fun-Loving Prigs...and Others

I must vent!
My Reprehensible Reporting Award of the Month (soon it will be 'of the Day', then 'of the Hour'...) goes to: Gwen Thompkins. Famous for her genial and chucklesome reports from that Annexation-In-Waiting to the Axis of Evil, Sudan, I was truly disgusted with her comic book portrayal this morning of a security conference in Khartoum. Readers can hear it for themselves on today's Morning Edition website, because there's no reason to describe it all here. She tries to be funny (why is EVERYONE trying to be FUNNY these days??) by waxing wry about a few things (and playful, too!), then, with all the inconsistency of a Dan Quayle speech, decides when to be properly sober, just to satisfy the NPR quota for 'seriousness' as an appropriate tone for a report from a 'serious' part of the world - you know, Darfur and all that stuff...
Predictably, this excreta was set up by Steev 'n Renayy, with all the self-amused priggishness to be found in many of their white yuppie/baby-boomer listeners.
To me they were communicating something like: 'Now, get a load of what those bozos in icky Sudan are up to! It's quite amusing...'
My dog vomits up far more acceptable discharge than this brain-dead 'infotainment'.

In the same show, I was reminded yet again how limited the range of demographics of the NPR listenship is (that's GOOD, isn't it?). Even though NPR boasts of getting letters/call-ins from truck driver types, I can't conceive of it being of much use to blue collar listeners. NPR has always been content to write them off to the nether realms of talk radio, while preferring to woo persons of higher quality - and income.

At any rate, there was a segment about what to do about having a new boss in the workplace. Nothing too terrible in itself, but it was so blithely exclusive as far as its audience was concerned (upper echelon office types), it was just another example of NPR's self-absorbed aspirations. But at the end of the piece, after one of Steav's jackass-laughing fits, he makes a bid to remind us that NPR is still of The People when he announces that Terry Semel of Yahoo's salary last year was in the 70 millions, and the implication was 'that's rather excessive'.
End of venting. Thank you for your patience, understanding - and pity.

Distillation of Truth: The Flowering of the American Empire

You can see how a certain element in the American culture is fascinated and seduced by Empire. The glory of it all, just the idea of it, not the realities - that's what hooks people. As Chalmers Johnson said, America is sacrificing its democracy for Empire.
'Hermetically sealed' bases within Iraq for decades to come will fool dumbed-down Americans into the notion that we aren't REALLY an empire. Beware the terms bandied about. A big part of the crap shoot of the Bush Administration is that they're going for Empire NOW, before someone else gets the prizes. I think that was a BIG incentive behind invading Iraq, not the laughable Wolfowitless ‘idealism’ of bringing democracy to the benighted or the WMD burlesque…
Call me ‘over the top’, but are they kidding with this crap . . . ?

The Gruesome Truth About Slam-Dunk

Post Mortem on Juan's Love-Cuddle With Junior

It's as if all the little biggies at NPR News have signed onto Junior's porno program with drooling relish. The love fest is just too intoxicating. Tipsy with corporate capital, they're just too drunk with power to realize that they have unabashedly hopped on to the doomed caravan so late, so very late in the Bush Era. How else could such insipid performances on such a wide scale be explained?

Juan Williams Interviews the Blessed One on NPR

Leaving aside all the factors of what this interview SHOULD have been, (and it should have been an opportunity for somebody really bold to nail Bush's ass on every issue) it is nevertheless a considerable example of just how good our boy Junior has gotten at posing in the presidenting act. Not only has he long been able to buddy up one on one, he has also been able to refine his conversational parrying to and fro. It is breathtaking what progress that boy has made. Some of his responses were downright reminiscent of a (get ready) Henry James paragraph-sentence. Could it be that he genuinely impresses the interviewer who happens to be in his presence, so that said interviewer, expecting a true dumbo, discovers Bush to be surprisingly adept at verbal rattling, and so they are defused from asking the tough, intelligent questions, and instead get derailed onto a sidetrack of superficiality, causing the Pres to 'win'. . . ? Why is his decorum so powerful? I noticed that Andy Rooney let fly a complaint yesterday on '60 Minutes' that the Pres can't even say 'nuclear' properly, yet here's poor, pathetic, overrated Juan Williams, taking the Pres to heavy task on his saying 'Democrat Congress' in the SOTU, and even gets him to utter an 'official' statement, saying that he can't pronounce certain words very well, yet drops the ball on this and every other opportunity . . . Well, that's not very accessible or helpful journalism, because the timidity in the face of the Throned One is too great for truth to prevail. I happen to know a woman who, when she lived in Texas, got to talk with the then governor at a benefit in which he appeared. The two talked for over an hour. And because of that - because he deigned to talk to a commoner one on one for over an hour at a public function - the woman I know was exalted. She felt so cared-for, so attended-to. And now, years later, Bush is still able to work his wonders on people who should know better. Question: Bush may have a knack of yak, but is it so formidible that NPR wimps can't stand up to it? Answer: why should they stand up to it when they are perfectly happy to go along with it?

Mara Rage #723

When is someone going to pull up Mara Liasson's turtleneck collar, so that not only her turkey-neck is concealed, but that her trap will be shut as well?
Who the hell likes her? Who thinks she's funny? Or witty? Why does she have to talk in that self-amused, slime-filled, jelly-masticating rattle-babble, that is so blatantly skewed against Democrats and Whigs, despite her alleged 'center-left' stance? Why, why, WHY??
I know, I know, this is 'NPR Loathing 101', but I listen to her in horror, and I know I can turn the radio off, but - wait, I don't want Mara to know that she has this power over me! I know she enjoys it! OK, I'm better now. Her segment is over - for now. But, but, why can't she just stay at Fox, where she's the token gal amongst Bill 'Howdy Doody' Kristol, Brit ‘Lurch’ Hume, et al. At least in their company she can't compete, so she's just boring, what with her time-filling blah-blah-blah and attention-starved pop-eyed grimaces.
End of Mara Rage #723.

Condi Is A Flop

There is little doubt that Condi is a failure as Sec. of State. That is, in conventional terms. As a tool of the Bush Machine she is, admittedly, a success in taking her orders from Chief Martial Law Administrator Cheney, like a good overrated girl.

None other than the ever-reliable Bob Novak points out that State is a mess under her genius leadership:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/
AR2007011002021.html

Regarding Ahmadinejad's state of mind, as revealed by our thoughtful Julie McCarthy on NPR as the US being his 'bitter enemy', it's another example of the Bush Machine's too-perfect packaging of 'evil' enemies. NPR loves to suck up to such opportunities; not much incentive to look past the BS shoveled in their direction. Most of the duds at NPR have about as much imagination as a dried up slug. Of course, this is typical of the mainstream media, where if a reporter gets truly investigative these days, they'll be written off as a conspiracy theorist. Julie wants to keep her comfy gig.
Speaking of theories, I hope I don't risk offense by suggesting that it's not too far out to think that Ahmadinejad just might be on the US payroll in order to agitate matters, so as to 'justify' a US invasion/intervention. After all, Saddam was our man in Baghdad for years, though he didn't stay bought, as Bill Clinton would say. Chavez, that other nasty bogeyman, is too smart to suck up. He can smell sulfur more than a kilometer away. That's what bugs the BM (Bush Machine) so much.

And there is this: the fact that Chairman Mao & Co. embraced US overtures to China as quickly as they did, especially after more than two decades of demonization, is plenty of evidence that nations want deals instead of wars. The Chinese had long been terrified of a US invasion.
Engaging Iran would be just about the simplest and least complicated gesture the US could make right now.
But as we know, the BM does not want a cooperative Iran as it exists now. The BM wants an Iran remade in its own choice of image.