Meltdown

A number of fairly incredible things are happening in Washington---where it's hotter than hell in more ways than one. The Democrats held a forum on the Plame affair that revealed just how serious this is, the Bush administration has stopped release of new Iraqi prison torture photos and wants a law to prevent similar photos from Guantanamo and elsewhere, reports have surfaced of Cheney ordering a plan to attack Iran that includes use of nuclear weapons, and the Patriot Act is very close to being made permanent with virtually no public debate.

We’ll try to deal with each of these separately, so for now, some highlights of the Plame hearings.

This was an unofficial forum assembled on Friday morning by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), co-chaired by Dorgan and Congressman Henry Waxman. Some eloquent testimony was given and some action was proposed, but perhaps the quote of the day is this one, from former CIA operations officer Jim Marcinkowski:" Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear: Politics in this country does, in fact, trump national security."

Representative Henry Waxman provided context. "The disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as an undercover CIA agent is indefensible on many levels. It was an indefensible betrayal of her and her family. It was an indefensible affront to the men and women who are on the front lines of defending America. And it was an indefensible breach of our national security."

He then related the case directly to the Iraq war.

"And it is an issue deeply personal to me. One of the hardest votes that I cast was to authorize the war in Iraq. Like many others, I was torn. But in the end, I sided with the president because of the administration's insistence that Iraq was on the verge of nuclear capability. Today, we know the truth. I was misled, as were the American people. And it was Valerie Plame Wilson's husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who helped expose what really happened."

"Well, today's New York Times fills in another piece of the puzzle," Waxman continued."In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet personally called the deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, to stop President Bush from using the uranium claim in his speech in Cincinnati. Around the same time, the CIA sent the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, a memo warning her not to rely on the uranium evidence."

He indicated (as did others later) that this contradicts claims that the Bush White House did not know the claim about Niger and uranium was false before the State of the Union.

In speaking about accountability for the leak, Waxman said, "There is an executive order -- Executive Order 12958 -- that governs protection of national security information. Under this executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to take appropriate and prompt corrective action to address the leaks of classified information."

"There's a special standard for Karl Rove: There will be no questions asked and no accountability," Waxman observed. Then he zeroed in on another action that needs to be taken: a full congressional inquiry.

Not only is the president ignoring his obligation, but Congress is refusing to do its job." Waxman said. "There is a simple way to get to the bottom of this scandal: The Republican Congress can hold a hearing as early as next week with Mr. Rove. For the sake of all the men and women who are defending America's freedom, Republicans in Congress should join us in asking questions and getting answers for the American people.”

“They have refused to hold these hearings, and that is why we're doing what we can today, but we can't subpoena Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, and they would refuse to come to appear before us. They would have to come if Congress did its job as a separate and independent branch of government and exercised its oversight responsibility for the protection our nation."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)asked her own questions about the extent of this act:

"Aside from Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Colin Powell and Ari Fleischer, who else in the White House had access to the classified memo?"

"Given that so many of the president's men had access to the memo, it is incumbent upon Congress, the special prosecutor and the American people to ask the following difficult question: What did President Bush know about the Valerie Plame leak and when did he know it?

Is it possible that he and Vice President Cheney, along with most of Bush's inner circle, could have known about this plot to exact retribution on Ambassador Wilson at the expense of national security?

Is it possible that President Bush or Vice President Cheney could have been involved themselves?

These are tough, serious questions that must be addressed."


Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) was equally pointed:

"Nobody died in Watergate. And over 1,750 of our sons and daughters are dead in the sands of Iraq. And I have come here to show my respect for our intelligence covert agents and Foreign Service officers who risk their lives to get the truth to the American people."

Senator Dorgan then asked the panel before him for their statements. Larry Johnson had introduced Colonel Patrick Lang as his mentor, and Senator Dorgan added more of his resume.

Col. Patrick Lang--retired senior officer of U.S. military intelligence, Vietnam veteran, a Middle East specialist--spoke of the gathering of intelligence from individuals (so-called human intelligence, or HUMINT) as especially crucial in stopping terrorists, for they offer few opportunities for other kinds of surveillance---they have no missile silos to photograph from satellites, etc. Speaking of human intelligence he said, "it is a peculiarity of this kind of war that that is exactly the kind of intelligence that you have to have. "He suggested the U.S. hasn't done very well in that area so far, but its this area of intelligence that the Plame outing has directly damaged. He called it "an assault on the ability of the United States" to perform human intelligence.

"Why would that be? It's because HUMINT is about human beings. It's about one person, an American person, a case officer in the parlance of the trade, causing some foreign person to trust him enough and to trust his unit and to trust the United States enough to put his life, his fortune and, indeed, his sacred honor in many cases into the hands of this case officer and the American intelligence unit that stands behind this case officer."

Lang was highly persuasive in talking about the reality of what human intelligence gathering means. He even gave it a religious dimension.

“It's all about trust; it's completely about trust. It's about -- I happen to have done a good deal of this kind of work in my life. And the moment in which some person, whether he's an ambassador or a Montagnard in the hills of Vietnam with filed teeth, decides that he's going to trust you enough so that he's going to believe that you will protect him in every way in doing what he is doing, which is extremely dangerous to him and his family and to everyone else, is a magic moment, indeed. It's almost sacramental in a lot of ways, really.

And it imposes on the case officer and the unit behind him in the United States the kind of obligations that are as serious in some ways as the seal of the confessional, really. I mean, I'm a Catholic; I understand exactly what that means."

"And the obligation to protect this person is absolute, in fact. And it's not only absolute from the point of view of morality; it's absolute from the point of view of practicality as well, because if within a practicing clandestine intelligence unit the case officers believe that their superiors will not protect the identity of their sources or their own identity, in fact, in doing things which are dangerous and difficult, then a, kind of, circle of doubt begins to spread, like throwing a rock into the water.

And it spreads in such a way so that if an intelligence service that belongs to a particular country comes to be thought generally in the world as an organization that does not protect its own, does not protect its foreign assets, then the obvious is true in that people are not going to accept recruitment, are not going to work for you. And the smarter they are, the better placed they are, the better educated they are, the less likely they are to accept recruitment and to work for you if they believe that you are not going to fight in the last ditch to protect their identities. And so, this is all completely about trust."

After ex-CIA Larry Johnson was Jim Marcinkowski, who had a rich and varied background in both intelligence (working at different times for the CIA and FBI) and in law enforcement, as a prosecutor and defense attorney. He also was once the president of the Michigan Young Republicans.

He explained how exposing Valerie Plame sent a message that U.S. promises can’t be trusted, heard loud and clear by those overseas who might otherwise help American efforts. That message is made even louder by continued inaction.

“The problem with a refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing, causes greater damage to our national security as well as our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem of inaction by the government lies not only with government officials, but also with the media, the commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community."

"Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear: Politics in this country does, in fact, trump national security."

"Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere paper pusher or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it's a disservice to this country."

He addressed what should have been done.

"Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security. When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of those persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine across the country in every police department, and every American citizen understands that."

There was a surreal moment later when Senator Dorgan was asking Larry Johnson a question about the effect of this affair on the operation Valerie Plame was part of, which was to gather information on possible chemical, biological and nuclear weapons threats to the U.S. Johnson’s answer was interrupted by Dorgan trying to find out from security whether in fact the building was being evacuated, for an apparent bomb threat.

It wasn't, but Johnson's answer may have been lost in the shuffle. But it was on point: "This problem almost certainly damaged intelligence assets that were connected with providing the United States information about rogue states and terrorist organizations trying to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear material. And that goes to the very heart of some of the threats that we face today."

White Hot House News

Earth is not the only planet that’s getting hot: Bushworld is getting scorched around the edges, and the flames may be making their way towards the center.

The latest shoe to drop is the report, first from a blog reporter and now from Bloomberg News, that because the Grand Jury testimony of Karl Rove and Lewis Libby (v.p. Cheney’s chief of staff) on how they learned the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson (they said from reporters) was contradicted by the testimony of the reporters, they may be facing perjury charges.

Other reports suggest perjury may be the least of their worries. A number of stories in the Washington Post and elsewhere quote sources saying that Valerie Plame’s name was contained in a classified State Department document that White House aides were seen reading on Air Force One, that the mention of her name was annotated with the word “secret,” and that the entire document may have been classified “Top Secret,” which would make revealing its contents a serious federal crime. Since neither Rove nor Libby was on the plane for the trip in question, there may be other names of interest to the Grand Jury.

Republican majorities in the House and Senate are ignoring all of this, and refusing to hold hearings. Democrats are holding their own informal inquiry, but this is becoming a National Security issue. It's going to be more and more difficult for Republicans to continue ignoring their constitutional responsibilities, especially if constituents start to remind them.

Rove v Rove

The action was intense inside the Beltway and its media all weekend: columnists and anti-Bush partisans screaming scandal and infamy, pundits and pro-Bushers screaming that the real villain is the supposed victim, the outed CIA agent and her husband.

But all that happened at the White House Monday was Bush making inoperative his previous pledge, or (if you're a Busher) clarifying it, by saying he'd fire anyone who was convicted of criminal leaking of classified information.

Some of those who've been obsessed with nothing else in the political game expressed surprise that Rove still had a job as of Monday. But that quick an exit really shouldn't have been expected.

The Bushers had to make various calculations. How close is the prosecutor and Grand Jury to actually indicting anyone? That's a timeline they have to watch very carefully. Another calculation is: how is this going over with the public? Who is winning the spin wars?

They got some answers to that second question, and from their point of view, it ain't pretty.

The first poll, from ABC News came out. On the question of whether Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information, two-thirds of those surveyed said Yes. That's 83% of the Democrats, 74% of the Independents, and 71% of Republicans.

On the question of whether the Bushers are sincerely cooperating with the investigation, only 47% of Republicans think so. 90% of Democrats and 75% of Independents think they aren't.

So it's now pretty likely that Rove will resign. What we don't know is how they're choosing up sides in the White House. If they're still all on the same page, they'll be working on the timing of Rove's resignation. That will partly depend on what the Grand Jury is doing. But it wouldn't be too surprising if on a late Friday afternoon sometime in the next three weeks, Rove announces that he's leaving to spend more time with his family. Or he might even say it's to take pressure off the Prez and prove his own innocence.

But what if there's civil war going on in there? Cheney people against Bush people, and are there Rove people? One sure sign of serious conflict is if Bush actually fires Rove. That would be like the first shot of a political war, and maybe an insurgency...And if nothing happens, that could also mean pitched battles in the White House.

But as Frank Rich and others said over the weekend, and as you've read here before that, Rove V. Rove is a sideshow. There is much more at stake.

Some of that is signaled by the New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh which says that the Bushers poured money into their favored candidate to fix the Iraq election. The kind of activities alleged---voter intimidation, fraud, etc.---sounds quite familiar. From Ohio in 2004. The hand of Rove is everywhere.

"Dr. Memory?"
"Y-e-sss"
"Do you remember the future?"
"Yeesss"
"Well, forget it!"
---The Firesign Theatre: "I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus"


This past week, from July 12th to the 15th, a global Technology, Entertainment and Design conference was held in Oxford, England to consider the future, including the roles of politics, the environment and social issues in shaping 21st century life.

Among the more than 300 participating scientists, technologists, thinkers, designers, musicians and playwrights were Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, X-Prize founder Peter Diamandis and Nokia director of design strategy Marko Ahtisaari.

From the fairly sparse reports (mostly from the BBC), this conference seems to represent the usual confusion of which futurism is heir to. There seem to be a lot of technologists plugging their products (as well as plugging them in, except for the wireless of course) and authors flogging their books. Every expert ignores the field of every other expert. And one biotechnologist extols the complexity of life while proposing to apply reductionist techniques to create more artificially.

Though held in Europe for the first time, this has been a high profile event in the U.S.: the first TED conference saw the unveiling of the Apple Macintosh, the Sony compact disc, and mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot's demonstration of mapping coastlines with his discovery of fractals. Bill Gates, architect Frank Behry and musician Herbie Hancock have been featured speakers.

In advance of the event, Oxford announced the formation of its 21st Century School, created from an endowment by computer pioneer James Martin, to study issues such as climate change, technology, disease and aging societies.

"Our century is very, very special, " Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, told the conference. "It is the first where humans can change themselves... Whatever happens in this uniquely crucial century will resonate in the remote future and perhaps far beyond the Earth."

In reviewing recent scientific achievements and challenges, such as genetics and biotechnology, and the conundrums of recent physics, Rees felt that the greatest challenge is posed by the science of complexity.

Rees, a cosmologist, has not been particularly optimistic about the human future. Playing on the Churchillian phrase 'our finest hour', his recent book is called "Our Final Hour." He warns that technology is creating "as escalating variety of potential disasters," from climate change to artificially created epidemics and in the far future, abuses of robotics and nanotechnology.

At the conference he emphasized the human potential. "If you represent the Earth's lifetime in a single year, the 21st Century would be a quarter of a second in June... We are not even halfway through our allotted time on Earth before the Sun itself burns out."

Another speaker, Craig Venter, described the sheer
amount of life on this planet of which we are utterly ignorant.
On an ocean voyage around the world Venter took a seawater sample every 200 miles, and found new species of life each time. In one place, a single barrel contained 1.3 million previously unknown genes, and 50,000 new species.

Yet the lesson Venter drew from this was not appreciation or preservation, but the need to try to create artificial life. "Only by trying to build it will we truly understand it," he says.

It seems Rees' fears are well founded.

According to reports, this year’s tech gadgets seemed to emphasize new uses of wireless technologies. But several speakers also emphasized that the silicon based lifestyle is exceeding the speed of life, and that the explosion of confusing, trivial if not meaningless choices of tech-enabled consumerism may not be all good. There are studies to back some of this up, such as those showing productivity dropping under the onslaught of email, and housework actually taking more time now than a century ago.

Asked about the digital media future, one expert predicted “fifty years of chaos.” With these folks, who could predict anything else?

UNRAVELGATE

A third rate burglary. A bungled leak to discredit a political enemy.

All the pieces may not tumble this time, but it's becoming clearer how they might. And how this may not be as big as Watergate---it may be bigger, and deeper.

Because for all the threats and wounds to the Constitution, and all the daunting abuses of power in Watergate, no one died as a direct result.

This time, people are dying all over the world. Americans and Iraqis in Iraq. Londoners in London. People in Turkey, in Afghanistan, and no one knows where next.

Justin Raimondo writes in anti-war.com: This isn't about Rove. It's about a cabal of war hawks inside the administration

He suggest Rove may even have been an unwitting accomplice, though just as involved in the stench.

Now Frank Rich in the New York Times adds this:
...we shouldn't get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.

Follow the Uranium - New York Times

This scandal is about Dick Cheney and the neocons, it's about President Bush and all who led America into war under false pretenses, which included lying and covering up those lies, and subverting the very institutions of government they are sworn to uphold and protect.

The lies that the Administration told to invade Iraq and create the chaos that now makes that country a violent incubator for terror all over the world. The violence is growing worse.

Ten suicide bombings in a single day in Iraq. The total number of suicide bombings in the world over the past twenty years was fewer than 400, until this year. In this year, there have been more than 500 in Iraq alone.

This was a war to bring democracy to Iraq. Now a poll in Iraq taken for coalition forces shows this bit of democratic sentiment:

Those who strongly support U.S. and coalition forces: 15%
those who support the insurgents 45%

Watergate was a test of American institutions and the courage of those who understood the stakes. Will they---will we-- step up this time? Who will take responsibility?

Trusted No More

President Bush's personal credibility appears to be eroding at a time when Iraq has become the top public priority and the White House is engulfed in controversy over senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, a poll released on Wednesday suggested.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the percentage of Americans who believe Bush is "honest and straightforward" fell to 41 percent from 50 percent in January, while those who say they doubt his veracity climbed to 45 percent from 36 percent.


Print Story: Poll suggests drop in Bush's personal credibility on Yahoo! News

Blood in the water

The Rove affair continues to obsess Washington and the political blogosphere, where it is becoming mortal political combat.

There is a certain blood lust in the glee with which anti-Bushites are going after Rove, and there is the give-no-quarter distortions and lies of the GOPer defenders. The result is a lot of ugly noise, a little light, and it seems to me a short-sighted strategy ending with getting rid of Rove, while indications accumulate that everybody may be missing the true dimensions of the situation.

Having outrageously slandered war heroes who happened to be Democrats running for office, and gained advantage by doing so, the GOPers are now defaming a CIA undercover agent and a number of unknown people who worked with her, all of whom risked their lives believing it to be in service of their country. In short, these GOPers are cowards and liars, and the Democrats are treating Rove a bit too much as an opportunity for vengeance.

Rove certainly deserves to be taken down, although to get him for this offense is a lot like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

But in the "fire Rove" campaign, besides vengeance and some temporary political gain, what is the point? Of course, Bush should fire Rove, but he won't. And "getting rid of Rove" alone will accomplish little.

The White House is stonewalling and absent anything more substantive but this noisy frenzy, they can keep it up long enough for Rove to resign. If things quiet a bit, he will resign "to pursue opportunities in the private sector" or "to spend more time with his family," and the apologists will point out that presidential aides often resign in the last couple of years of a second term.

If the frenzy continues, Rove will resign "to spare the president the distraction of this controversy."

Then what? That's what I wish some folks would be thinking about, but at the moment it seems everybody's thinking with their glands.

The savagery of this conflict is a pale but apt reflection of the savagery in Iraq. The whole idea of civilization is unraveling before our eyes.

In the meantime, some observers are suggesting that there is more to the ongoing investigation than the naming of an undercover CIA agent. There may be widespread violation of the Espionage Act in the Bush White House, as asserted in this summary from dkos.

This could get bigger than Watergate, and it could bring down the Bush White House. But the key will be the criminal investigation, not the Washington political bloodsport.

Rove, Rove, Rove your Boat

The plot thickens in the latest Washington drama. It's a bit of Greek theatre, and a lot of a Wahington novel of intrigue.

Last week the New York Times "reporter" Judith Miller, a well-documented apologist and mouthpiece for Bushcorp, went to jail for refusing to turn over notes to the federal prosecutor trying to find out who in the White House told the press that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent, and whether a crime was committed---either the crime of knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent, or lying to a grand jury about it.

That was the Greek drama part. Everyone acted their role exactly as they should. The prosecutor prosecuted. The judge judged according to the law. The reporter nobly refused to give up her source. Her newspaper wrote a noble editorial about it.

Now comes the novel of intrigue. What did who know and when did they know it? And who knows what now?

All eyes (the one's that are watching that is) are on Karl Rove. Several reporters have publicly named him as the source for the Plame info, and the source for the Time Magazine reporter who had also been threatened with jail, until Time took his notes away from him so their stock wouldn't tumble, and his source gave him permission to name him.

(If you haven't read the earlier chapters, Plame was outed to try to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who blew the whistle on Bushcorps phony assertion that Saddam was collecting the makings of nuclear weapons.)

There's still some key information missing. But if I were plotting this for a novel, I'd see the silence of J. Miller as the key.

If Rove started this whole thing off with Miller, or if in fact it was Miller who came up with the info on Plame, then Rove now knows what the prosecutor can prove, and he can play the legalisms. No, he didn't name her (just called her Wilson's wife.) No, he didn't know she was covert, just a CIA analyst.

What the recent relevations indicate is how closely key members of the press listen to Rove. He felt perfectly comfortable "advising" the Time reporter.

So now a key question is: If Miller doesn't have anything on Rove, why wouldn't he do for her what he did for the Time reporter, and give her permission to name him and turn over notes, so she could avoid jail?

As it is, Miller in jail is a winner for both Rove and Miller. Rove gets her silence, and she gets to be the hero and martyr of the fourth estate. So if Rove is confident that she won't talk, he can play it as it lays now.

Can't wait for the next chapter. Maybe a new character comes on the scene?

UPDATE : In court papers, the prosecutor reveals that Miller has received permission from her source to name this person, but she still refuses. Speculation now is that Miller has something to hide, and several stories (including one in the Washington Post) suggest the prosecutor is looking at the possibility of a journalist being indicted for revealing the covert agent's name.

Under repeated questioning at an afternoon press conference, White House press secretary refused to comment or answer any question about Rove's role, even refusing to repeat past statements that Rove is blameless, or that the President believes anyone leaking this information should be fired.

Welcome to the One False Church


Welcome to the One False Church. Many if not implicitly all those other churches and religions claim to be the one, the only truth. The Catholics: the One True Church© from way back. The various Evangelical/Fundamentalist Churches, sects and subsects (nothing succeeds like subsects) all claim sole proprietorship of the truth.

So how do you know, how do you really know? You’re not choosing a toothpaste here, this is your soul. So why not choose certainty? You may never know which is the true church, but you can be completely confident that this is the False Church.

Everything about it is guaranteed false. Our version of the Bible (soon to be Revealed right here) is completely bogus. Our cosmological explanation of life, the universe and everything: all false. Our rules and regs, our Dogma and Patrimony Show, all 100% bullshit. All our names for the Almighty---totally wrong, you’ll never get Him/Her/Them/Whatever/ on your cell. Actually, even these statements are utterly without merit.

And I, the self-appointed Pope George-Ringo I, otherwise known as the Perky Pontiff, will guide you through the labyrinthine, yet perfectly simplistic, paths to the Eternal Falsehood, with plenty of pompous yet empty meanderings, bold lies, skillful deceptions, key inaccuracies, plus assorted minor deceits, half-truths, phoniness, misdirection, calumny, meaningless balderdash, random mendacity, and holy nonsense along the way, the False and the Twilight Zone.

Oh, and the maps are worthless as well.

Our theological arguments are known throughout the world for being dependably dependent on outrageously bad logic and complex but (rest assured) circular reasoning, selective and out of context quotation, distorted descriptions and insupportable conclusions, and such time-honored rhetorical devices of deceit as ad hominem attacks, poisoning the well, selectively distorted statistics, unsupported assertions masked as facts, deceptive and non-existent sources, serial misquotation, name-calling, and referencing well known statements that were false in the first place. In other words, truly false---and proud of it.

The One False Church: in good times and bad, it’s comforting to know you’re wrong, every damned time.

Stay tuned for more elaborate fabrications. In the meantime, remember: The One False Church: Falsehoods You Can Count On.

Scotched in Scotland

The G8 Summit in Scotland is over. As honcho of the convening country that set the agenda, Brit Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely praised for placing world poverty and the climate crisis at the top of the agenda---and he would have been even without the show of support after the terror bombings.

After that things get murky. When it came to farm subsidies reform, European nations stuck close to their self-interest. But on the larger questions, it was Bushcorps that spoiled the apples. Even on the one major accomplishment---doubling aid to Africa---Bush had to brag that it didn't cost the U.S. anything it wasn't already going to spend.

But the Climate Crisis was as usual the main rot.Bushcorps prevented the conference from endorsing real emissions goals, while continuing to argue that Kyoto standards would wreck the U.S. economy, economic studies to the contrary. But the Bushitters had at least a possible point that the emphasis should be placed on alternative energy. But in the end, it was all talk. Bush didn't commit a cent to development or research.

Bush is going to be remembered for many crimes against the country: lying the U.S. into a war of aggression, turning a surplus needed to address pressing present and near-certain future problems into a devastating deficit---those will probably dwarf the others. But one crime against the world, it's people and it's life will be what he's doing and failing to do about the climate crisis. He's the new and global Nero. Bush twaddles while the world burns.

Terror

The Guardian called Wednesday's transit explosions England's "worst-ever terror attack," "causing the biggest loss of life..."

But was it? If the definition is restricted to postwar violence by parties other than a sovereign state, then it fits. But from the point of view of the targeted population, it was not.

Because around sixty years ago, there was something called The Blitz.

For a full description with pictures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

The people of London and people in other areas of England endured German bombing as early as 1939 to as late as 1945. But they experienced the concentrated bombing campaign known as the Blitz from the fall of 1940 until the following May of 1941.

Look at these numbers with recent acts of terrorism in mind.

At first the targets were military and supply. On September 7, some 300 German bombers escorted by 600 fighters came in the first wave, followed by another 180 bombers that night. The target was the port, but most of the bombs hit residential areas-"collateral damage" we'd say today---killing 430 and injuring 1600.

This kind of bombing continued for 60 consecutive nights. An average of 200 bombers each night dropped a total of over one million incendiary bombs and 13,000 tons of high explosives.

Then the Luftwaffe expanded the targets to other cities, but there were still attacks on London. A third phase began in February 1941. According to the wikipedia entry, "By this time, the effort was aimed as much against civilians as against industrial targets and the raids were intended to provoke terror among the civilian population."

Some 43,000 people were killed in the bombings, and over one million homes were destroyed. Such national landmarks as Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral were damaged. The devastation was so extensive that piles of rubble survived into the 1980s.

Then came the V-1 Buzz Bombs and the V-2 rocket bombs: nearly 1400 V-2s fell on London alone.

The terror was supposed to break the will of the British people. Hitler predicted workers would revolt against the government. It didn't work. The British held together and fought back. The article describes their "stoicism," the same word used in a report about London after the terror attacks Wednesday.

This Friday the subways and buses are expected to operating at near normal levels. London would go about its business.

When the Allies achieved air superiority in Europe and then in Japan, they eventually also used bombing for the chief purpose of terrorizing the populations of German and Japanese cities. In most cases, it had the same effect as the Blitz bombing: it stiffened the resolve of the people being terrorized.

Good and Evil

President Bush has used the London terrorist bombings as another occasion to broadcast his analysis that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. It is a deceptively simplistic argument, and it is damaging to our ability to focus on what needs to be done to prevent terrorist attacks.

How do you decide who is Good and who is Evil? Empirically? The Good guys don't blow up innocent civilians in London subways---they blow them up from airplanes over Iraq, or with artillery shot into houses, etc. How do you measure the relative evil?

Do you make a balance sheet of good deeds versus bad deeds? How do you weigh one against the other---in terms of numbers of people? Or dollars spent, or saved? What is the time frame---throughout history, in the past year, in the current administration?

Does the inability to come up with commonly agreed upon criteria mean that good and evil are empty concepts, without meaning? No. Not at all.

Good is something we strive to be. Good is something we try to do. There is nothing exact about it. We know that we have good and evil in our natures. We know that there are people who are transcendentally good, though not everything they do is good, just as there are people who are operationally evil, though they may treat their pets very well.

The human problem is that if we think we've done something bad, we feel guilty, we don't want to own up to it, and we wish we hadn't done it. That helps us in trying to do good, to get better at it. But it also leaves us open to manipulation. People can guilt-trip each other, and they can also mollify each other, take away the guilt by denying the evil act.

This is politically potent. If you can make people feel they are Good, this is a Good country, you are likely to get elected and reelected. There are other underlying complexities here, some due to differences in fundamental beliefs about the human situation, which some people derive from their religious doctrines. Some people believe that because of their faith, they are Good. Other believe that good is a matter of deeds.

Put together politics, a certain studied simplemindedness, and perhaps a certain religious faith, and you've got the GW Bush view. The big problem with the Bush view is that he sees Us as Good in a way that means everything we do is good and nothing we do is evil.

That's not only morally devastating, it hinders practical efforts, for example in preventing terrorist attacks.

The act of killing innocents in London was evil. The thought of planning it for months, and then (if the claim of responsibility is to be believed) promoting it as some holy fulfillment, is sickening. But we will get nowhere on any level by taking the absolute view that being the Good Guys means we're pure and without responsibility for evil that sows the seeds of more evil.

Ignorance is no excuse either, especially when military and economic power is being wielded in our name. And when those who we charge to protect us are failing. Believing ourselves to be Good suggests we have nothing to learn. That's an error that invites tragedy.

I would define a Good country as one that relentlessly tries to do good, that admits its errors, makes those responsible accountable, and takes responsibility for correcting errors, correcting evils and doing better. A country that is always learning, and takes seriously what it learns, and acts on it. Then the idea has meaning: we can say we're a good country, without saying or implying that we're pure, that anything we do can be justified because we define ourselves as Good.

News Flash! Bush Not Entirely Wrong on Climate Crisis!

The Bush administration is taking a new tack in its approach to global heating at the G8 Summit in Scotland, which past experience suggests may be cynical and mendacious, but on the merits it is almost not untrue. Fancy that.

Starting with the positive, G.W. Bush allowed these very words to escape from his oil-based lips: "I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem."

Strike up the band! What's next? Bush discovers gravity?

Okay, let's not get carried away.

The exact proposals Bush will make, and the exact wording of the final communique out of Scotland, are yet to occur. But Bush is urging movement away from fossil fuels, which must be regarded as positive, and suggests a package of financial incentives to encourage alternative energy.In this, he is partly being just realistic about what businesses are already doing, and perhaps offering them more government welfare to do what they know they have to do anyway. But that's not unprecedented, and the truth is that the attempts to deal with the two main elements of the climate crisis are going to be messy and fractious.

The two elements are near-term crises and long-term prevention. At the moment, proposals for alternative energy have all kinds of near-term benefits, except that they are unlikely to assuage the near-term effects of the climate crisis. When those effects start to be pronounced in various parts of the world, there may be a reaction against alternative energy because it didn't prevent them. That's a problem leaders should be aware of and talking about, but in fact political leaders are dealing in baby steps. For now, it's at least something that they are talking about moving away from fossil fuels at all.

There are a number of prominent examples of the unorganized and often entreprenurial efforts, which "Dreaming Up Daily" will highlight in coming weeks. For now, this one: the prominence of wind power.

In this International Herald Tribune article, a number of nations and international companies are getting into the wind power business in a big way. Though most conspicuous in Europe, they include companies in Japan, and General Electric in the US:

General Electric said on June 28 that its revenue from wind power equipment in 2005, its third year in the wind power sector, would exceed $2 billion, based on orders and commitments through the first six months. "Wind power continues to be the fastest-growing segment of the global energy industry," General Electric said in a statement.

Of course, the growth of this industry belies Bush's contention that the Kyoto accords are destructive and unhelpful, for Kyoto spurred these alternative energy efforts. It ensured some sort of a global standard that gives businesses the confidence to pursue this.

But Bush is right, if only accidentally, that Kyoto is not the complete answer, and it alone is not sufficient to address the climate crisis, in near-term or far.

Name Change and New Portal

The name has changed, the address remains the same, so if you've bookmarked "American Dash", you'll still come here.

The content will probably remain largely the same, as I experiment with a new Portal blog. Please check it out and let me know what you think, by leaving a comment or emailing me. It's currently called Dreaming Up Daily.

New to this template is the Links feature to the right, under the ads. You can link directly to Dreaming Up Daily from there anytime.

Thanks.

And Endowed by the Great Mystery

Among the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence (that's what this fourth of July thing is supposed to be about, right?) is some outright slander of American Indians, despicable crap that Jefferson and his fellows knew wasn't true.

It's fitting and proper that the founding document of the United States should include the shadow of the entire European invasion enterprise. It's fitting that we acknowledge this as well as the eloquence and historical importance of this document.

But don't miss the oped piece in the New York Times that spells out some of the ways that American Indians and their cultures created and shaped the entire idea of liberty and equality. For instance:

When the 17th-century French adventurer Louis-Armand de Lom d'Arce, Baron de Lahontan, tried to convince the Huron, the Iroquois's northern neighbors, of Europe's natural superiority, the Indians scoffed. Because Europeans had to kowtow to their social betters, Lahontan later reported, "they brand us for slaves, and call us miserable souls, whose life is not worth having." Individual Indians, he wrote "value themselves above anything that you can imagine, and this is the reason they always give for it, that one's as much master as another, and since men are all made of the same clay there should be no distinction or superiority among them."

It's probably fitting then that so many seem compelled to celebrate this day by shooting off explosives. American Indians provided key ideas (which combined with European ideas as well, from the Enlightenment back to the Romans and Greeks and probably the Indigenous peoples there, because as this piece rightly points out, pre-agricultural societies are characteristically more egalitarian than post-agricultural ones. Read Paul Shepard on why this is so.) But the European transplants had the guns.

That particular war of the worlds worked out badly for the indigenous, especially since it was they who caught the imported diseases. Because they didn't live in overcrowded unsanitary conditions, they hadn't developed virulent contagious diseases of their own, and so had no immunity and no horrible germs for the invaders to catch. Wells' novel actually hints at this, although the Spielberg film that is this 4ths spectacle can only suggest what being invaded is like, and let the imaginative extrapolate, to Iraq for example, or even to their own U.S. backyards, before and even after the first big 4th of July weekend.

The Founding Sachems - New York Times

In Other New...

Review of Spielberg's version, "War of the Worlds" at Soul of Star Trek.
An essay upon Quiet at This North Coast Place.

Gone For Now

The ideal of a free press operating as a fourth estate, and "speaking truth to power" was always an ideal, and seldom realized. The press set professional standards in the modern era that moved it closer to this ideal, as did the culture within major news organizations and at least a small set of actions that could be held up as a model. Younger journalists wanted to push this independence even further, and get closer to the ideal.

It happened for awhile, as the countercultural press created a dynamic that seemed to goose the larger organizations with the resources to do actual reporting every day, all around the world. It would be interesting to chronicle the experience of former countercultural journalists as many of them joined these larger organizations, and the survival or not of those ideals.

News organizations were always businesses, and soon became parts of bigger businesses. When they were in the business of selling papers many did quite outrageous things that had little to do with the ideals of journalism. That seemed to have been marginalized in the modern, Walter Lippmann/Edward R. Murrow era.

Then came the sea-change of the 1980s, when illusions and trivia sold better than news and reality. By now, Bill Moyers' analysis of the media and its role in the downward spiral of democracy is the clearest and most complete, but there are many others outside and within the news business who would agree with most if not all of it. At best, we're going through a reversion to darker times, with the usual differences of technology and context.

Today Time Magazine chose to turn over a reporter's notes in the Valerie Plame case, after the Supreme Court ruled that two reporters, one from Time and one from the New York Times, could be jailed for refusing. They were about to be sentenced.

This has been a difficult case for many of us, more difficult even than in past challenges to a free press which put people in the absurd situation of rallying to the defense of pornographers, whose only real interest in a free press was the right to make lots of money.

The guilty parties in this case are within the Bush administration, and their "dirty tricks" and worse rival Watergate for viciousness and for undermining democracy. Plus one of the reporters involved---Judith Miller of the NY Times---is generally reviled and disrespected as a willing tool of the Bush machine. Her conduct as supposed war correspondent during the Iraq "embedded" reporter period was nothing short of scandalous. The Times should have fired her long ago.

The issues here are serious and complex, but the most objectionable part of Time's decision, and the element of it that is most threatening to journalism---that is in fact most revealing about the state of corporate journalism---is that the decision was made because the editor of Time---not the publisher, not the CEO or chair of the board---the editor decided that corporate interests come first. He said (according to the NY Times):

"I don't believe that a company has the right to put the assets of it shareholders at risk in an act of civil disobedience."

In one sentence he has pronounced the death knell for the independent press in our time.

It is most significant that this did not come from "the business side" of the paper---this might have been an expected response at any time in the modern era---but from editorial, that is supposed to defend its independence. If it doesn't, who the hell will?

Time Inc. Decides to Hand Over Notes of Reporter Facing Prison - New York Times

Iraqmire Update

Response to Bush's speech on Iraq ranges from tepid to savage. The cartoon by Oliphant in the Boston Globe showing Bush strutting over a sea of coffins being the most graphic, but there is also this column by Bob Herbert in the NY Times. Titled "Dangerous Incompetence" he begins:

"The president who displayed his contempt for Iraqi militants two years ago with the taunt "bring 'em on" had to go on television Tuesday night to urge Americans not to abandon support for the war that he foolishly started but can't figure out how to win."

Later Herbert uses the Q Word and the I. Word together, in a statement that is likely to be widely quoted:

"The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals."

Dangerous Incompetence - New York Times

How bad is the Bushitting? The Independent's Patrick Cockburn told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! that " [I]t’s a running joke in Iraq, in Baghdad, the number of Iraqi government leaders who are outside the country at any one time. At one moment last year, or this year, rather, a Baghdad newspaper calculated that the entire -- every cabinet minister was outside the country. The president, Jalal Talabani, was saying a couple of months ago that most of Iraq was quiet, but you have to look at where he was saying this: He was saying it in Brasilia, the capital of Brazil.

So you just have to get off the plane in Baghdad or look anywhere around the city to realize that this is a place in chaos and this is the most dangerous place in the world. "

Before the Panic Starts: A Cautionary Note about Nuclear

At the moment, only those in the vanguard---environmentalists, scientists, some corporate planners and execs---are obsessively worried about the climate crisis and/or the coming end of oil. But their concerns suggest what is to come, as panic sets in, as it eventually will.

So among this group there is already talk of reviving nuclear power generation, as a lesser of the evils technology. Even one of the founders of Greenpeace is reportedly talking this way. The idea is that nuclear is potentially a large enough source to make up for carbon based energy production, and that improvements in technology have rendered nuclear safer than it used to be. Apparently, the generation of huge amounts of nuclear waste is also part of that lesser evil. Lesser that what? You might well ask.

But a Brit think tank is putting one kobosh to this, simply as not cost effective. Maybe the vanguard will hear this, before it becomes a widespread part of the panic.

The cost of new nuclear power has been underestimated by a factor of three, according to a British think tank.
The New Economics Foundation (NEF) says existing estimates do not allow for the cost of building novel technologies and expensive time delays in construction.
They claim that renewable energy sources like wind and solar should be relied upon instead of nuclear power.

BBC NEWS Science/Nature Cost of nuclear 'underestimated'

In Other New...

The Great Malls of China in the LA Times, or an earlier version still at Shopopolis.

"Before Steven" looks at earlier versions of HG Wells' "The War of the Worlds" at Soul of Star Trek.