Posts

Slimy creaturesYou have read about them, seen them on TV and wondered about them---the central characters in the prison scandal whose faces first became familiar from the images that they themselves created. Images that shook the world and made us feel ashamed and revolted. Who are they? What made them do what they did?As the facts come out and more is known about them it becomes evident that there is little explanation. We just have to accept the fact that there are such people in the army and elsewhere. Given the opportunity the sadistic tendencies, the dormant brutality lurking in them, come out and Abu Ghraib happens. Other facts,too, become obvious. Failure of higher ranks to maintain discipline and permitting a climate of "anything goes". There was tacit support; they looked the other way. Conditions in Abu Ghraib Prison gave the slimy creatures the opportunity and they had a blast. One detects not the slightest display of remorse from any of them. They gloated in the images from Abu Ghraib; you see them gloating now. Scary, these sons and daughters of our society.Guantanamo was different. There the abusive interrogation practices were in accordance with official policy! Those involved followed orders.LinkNY Times-Kate Zernike

The Media and Credbility GapAre we going to see an end to reports that ascribe "unidentified source", "unnamed official"? Reading them one gets an image of a person whispering to an enterprising journalist, a bureaucrat making a call from a pay phone, or surreptitiously passing a note. Don't bet on it. The practice has developed legs of its own and is not going to disappear any time soon although The NY Times and other newspapers are taking a hard look at it.Readers who follow the major dailies take position on both sides of the argument--those who would like to see the end of the practice and those who feel that without such protection the sources would "dry up" and important news stories would never appear in print.Daniel Okrent of the Public Editor column in NY times (5/8/05) wrote under the heading "Briefers and Leakers and the Newspapers Who Enable Them".Credibility is also why many reporters will now acknowledge that the profession's worst habits must be broken - the vague descriptions of phantom sources, the readiness to disregard their motivations, the willingness to let them say what they wish without public accountability. White House correspondent David E. Sanger, much of whose recent work has been in the extremely sensitive area of nuclear proliferation, told me, "In the post-Iraq world" - the world in which artful leakers convinced reporters and their readers that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction - "using identifiers like 'intelligence officials' or 'officials with access to intelligence' just doesn't hack it."On a somewhat related issue, a blogger (Dilettante's Diary) wrote on April 10th about the broadcast media. She made cogent points about the lack of honesty that prevails in the industry, the unavoidable influence of the connection between corporate owners, advertisers and the government.The bottom line is that free press isn't really "free". The Washington Times and Fox News Channel are like propaganda arms of the White House. Other venerable institutions such as The NY Times, Washington Post, CBS,NBC,ABC and CNN try to present "balanced" news and often end up serving pap. They have great reporters who are hamstrung. It is the system.Links:NY TimesDilettante's DiaryNY Times-Daniel OkrentDilettante's Diary

"Insanity Fair"?One could see it coming.Pastor Chan Chandler of East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville,NC, expelled nine members of his congregation because they "didn't support President Bush". The pastor's action received support from the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. An official informed the Ashville-Citizen Times that "a pastor had every right to disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership"!This is a step beyond the position taken by the Catholic church before the election of 2004 to deny sacrament to those who supported abortion rights for women.What next?You could lose your job because of politicial affiliationYou could be refused admission in schoolYou could be refused tenancyRepent, all you sinners and show your support for the holy rollers. Change your voter registration otherwise you'll be punished by the vengeful Republican God. There is additional incentive. You'll not be "left beind"; the countdown to Armageddon has started.It is a bit early but think I'll pour myself a glass of the house plonk.Link: Guardian-Democrats Voted out of Church

And to members of the opposite sexMother's Day is around the corner. This is an expression of my admiration, affection and respect for women. Where would we be without you and the X Chromosome!Here are a few that I have known (my pleasure, privilege, and good fortune). I'm thankful.

And Blair vs. the ToriesA fellow blogger AmericanOL raised the following question:"the conflict here for many is that Blair was wrong on Iraq, but as a world leader he is much closer to the likes of clinton than bush anyday. would you rather have a conservative thatcher or a labour blair? or, do you agree that blair should pay for his illegal war regardless by losing his PM spot?"If I were a British citizen I would have consideredvoting for the Liberal Democrats but most certainly not if that meant the remotest chance of a victory for the Tories.Four and half years after the 2000 election it still rankles that an old has been, driven by ego, made it possible for the ultraconservative Bush administration to come into power.There were other factors: (1) voters who were disenfranchised; (2) voting systems and procedures that "malfunctioned"; (3) the party-line United States Supreme Court vote declaring George W. Bush the winner.Nevertheless, The Nader votes were one of the key factors in Florida, and Florida would have given Al Gore the electoral college votes needed to win. Do the Naderites think about it? Ralph Nader's abject performance in the 2004 election showed that he had lost his core supporters but he still went through the motions. And this is a man that I one time held in high esteem. How he fell!

The other side of the AtlanticElections in the British Isles are going to take place tomorrow, May 5.Many of you are aware of the "Daily Kos", the admirable blog by Markos Moulitsas. He appeared in The Guardian,UK, as a guest blogger and wrote about the difference in style of political campaigns in Britain."In the US, candidates for any political office prove their loyalty to their nation by putting flags on stage. Lots of them. Sometimes dozens of flags, other times just a couple of REALLY big ones. Every campaign sign sports an American flag while hundreds of people in the audience wave little American flags. Each candidate also wears a lapel pin with a little American flag on it. Because the more they accessorise in red, white and blue, the more, er, they love America. Or something."Makes you wonder why do we feel the need to make campaigns into circuses ? Why do the citizens of the United Kingdom and Europe feel comfortable without such props ?Link:Guardian-Moulitsas

Victim of being considered "Liberal" It is a matter of time. Now the mandarins of morality are making sure that PBS (a refreshing alternative in the clamorous jungle of commercial broadcast media) offers only what they want us to watch and hear. The attacks against PBS are not new. Conservatives had always been unhappy with the contents of programs in PBS. They considered them to be "biased" (too liberal). In today's America, what the conservatives want the conservatives get. The Pharisees are going to put their grubby hands on it and turn PBS into another god and country oriented media outlet.A comparison between the BBC (an entity fully funded and owned by the British government) and PBS says a lot about the difference between the two countries. The BBC has, so far, remained free of any interference by government.We got rid of the Taliban mullahs in Afghanistan but adopting Taliban-like policies here in the United States.The NY Times 5/2/05"WASHINGTON, May 1 - The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence."Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."Link:NY Times-PBS

"Mission Accomplished" - President George W. Bush, May 2, 2003And more."I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. And again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true."---President Bush on NBC's 'Meet the Press' - Sunday, February 8, 2004; 12:03 PMNow the latest available numbers. The cost in human terms two years later:U.S. SoldiersDead 1571Injured 17184Civilians Killed in Military Intervention 21239 (Minimum) 24106 (Maximum) On a related issue, the Associated Press reported that "Terror attacks worldwide more than tripled last year reaching a record high, according to government figures released by a senior House Democrat.Based on a briefing federal officials gave congressional aides, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Tuesday there were about 650 significant terror attacks last year. He said that was more than three times the record 175 tallied by the government in 2003." Return of the Con ManAhmed Chalabi, con man, bosom buddy of the war mongers, who had a major role in our misadventure in Iraq but temporarily fell from grace, is back in favor. He won the grand prize! Meet the new oil minister.Links:Terror AttacksNY Times-ChalabiIraq Body CountGlobal Security"War hath no fury like a non-combatant"---Charles Edward Montague, British soldier,author(1867-1928)

Great article by Frank Gray (The Guardian,UK) on Bix Beiderbecke and other jazz musicians who lived and performed in New York City.Bix was a rarity--a White cat in a field dominated by Blacks. I have a CD which includes such classics as "Riverboat Shuffle", "Singin' the Blues", and "Way Down Yonder in New Orleans". All of them originally recorded in 1927. Bix was accompanied by saxophonist Frankie Trambauer and guitarist Eddie Lang."He was completely self-taught and could not read music." Amazing.A marble plaque on the wall of the building where he died reads:In Memory of Leon "Bix" Beiderbecke Pioneer Jazz Cornetist, Pianist & Composer The Original Young Man With A Horn Born - March 10th, 1903 Davenport, Iowa Died - August 6th 1931 43-30 46th Street, Sunnyside, New York Paul Maringelli and The Bix Beiderbecke Memorial CommitteeGuardian-BeiderbeckeSingin' The BluesCharley Records Ltd, London,UKCD 2013 (1993)

More about The B & B Team - The Coalition for WarAccording to polls Tony Blair and his Labour Party will emerge victorious on May 5th.G.W. Bush won last November due to the wave of religiosity sweeping over our land and the consequent backlash over gay rights, same sex union,etc. And there was the fear factor. The terrifying events of 9/11 were milked at every opportunity. The voters paid no attention to other issues facing the country. The lack of justification for the war failed to make an impact.For Blair it is a different story. Recent leaks of documents related to his role in the war are damaging. But Britain has done well under his leadership. The economy is robust and unemployment low. The voters are not going to rock the boat by making a change although a large majority feels that it was wrong to get involved in the war.Following last Sundays revelations in The Guardian, the Independent has gained access to additional documents which clearly establish that Tony Blair too had made up his mind long ago in favor of attacking Iraq. Perhaps during his visit to Crawford the president and prime minister knelt down to pray and had an epiphany. We shall never know.This is from Sunday edition of the Independent."Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began, despite a clear warning from the Foreign Office that the conflict could be illegal.A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'."Link: Independent,UK Tony Blair's War