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.