Friday, February 29, 2008

It's not a Holocaust even when We say It is.

It was the shock that reverberated around the world. An Israeli defense minister threatened Gaza with a holocaust.

It defied belief that a people who have expended so much talent and effort in educating the world as to the horrors of genocide should turn around and threaten others with what they themselves suffered.

This wretched denouement will come as no surprise to those who recognize in Zionism the same fatal ethnic idolatry that agitated Nazism. The difference between legitimate ethnic pride and pathological ethnic narcissism is always a question of degree. But when self-worthiness passes into self-worship it inevitably ends up worshiping at the expense of others

The reaction among most Israelis and their supporters around the globe fell into two categories: (1) denial that anything so outrageous had been said and (2) an attempt to shift the blame onto the victims.

The back-pedaling of the first would be comic were it not so hypocritical. It was said that the word “shoah” (or holocaust) didn’t always mean holocaust, but was used colloquially to refer to the mess in the kitchen, messed up accounts, and any kind of routine fiasco. Ergo, the Gazans weren’t really be threatened with anything like genocide. Not to worry.

This hasbara (“forensic defense of Israel”) is just an outright lie. Just last year, AIPAC and Jewish Groups in the United State fought tooth and nail to prevent an official commemoration of the “Armenian Holocaust.” Over and over again Jewish spokesmen declaimed that the word “holocaust” had a specific meaning limited to Jewish suffering and the “extent of the horror” would be cheapened by being applied to any else.... except of course as we now learn, the mess in the kitchen, the fiasco at the picnic and other such disasters which afflict ordinary people in daily life.

Just this January, the Jewish Council of Germany was aghast and offended that some Munich carnival goers had been granted a permit to parade on what the they unilaterally decreed was “Holocaust Day.” In short, the efforts of Jews around the world to turn their experience in the second world war into a sacred and taboo event is obvious to anyone who hasn’t had his head buried in the sand. To come now and claim that “holocaust” really didn’t mean that when it was uttered is just bald faced hypocrisy that counts on the world being stupidly suckered.

As for blame shifting; this has become the Standard Performance of Israeli policy. Thus, after protesting that, “in context,” shoah really only meant a doozy paloozy, Israelis followed up with “and they deserved it anyways”. Inevitably the coda to this refrain was that “Israel” was being terrorized by a “rain” of rockets and had to defend itself against, unprovoked attacks and a looming Holocaust™ at the hands of jew-hating Arabs.

mini-shoah in Gaza

The only way Israel can disequilibriate the sheer disporportionality of its conduct is to shuffle and switch the things compared. “Israel” is not under attack in any real sense. Sderot, a small township, near the Gaza border is being harrased by jumbo firecrackers that in a period of four years have killed two, perhaps now three or four people. By way of a true comparison all of Gaza is under siege and daily attack by the Israeli military and In the same period, hundreds verging on a thousand Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli collateral actions. The false equation foisted is revolting.

When all is said and done, no one “deserves” a “holocaust” -- mini or otherwise. The whole point of international law in this area is to put limits on how wars are fought. Those limits mean that whatever else “the enemy” may deserve it deserves not to have its children blasted to bits or to be starved and diseased into submission.

What Israel is doing in Gaza is evil, and has been condemned by the UN, the Secretary General, the World Court and numerous human rights organizations. For years the Israel government has subjected Gaza (and the West Bank) to restrictions that clearly qualified as “genocide” under the definitions studiously worked out by Rafael Lemkin who coined the word.

During the past year, what the sycophant western press labeled as energy cut offs was in fact a program of starvation, as reported here and elsewhere. Earlier this year (2008), it was reported that as a result of Israeli bombings the sewage mains had broken in Gaza. What this means is that the Gazans are being placed in imminent danger of typhus outbreaks.

So? So what the vast heap of “The Holocaust®” documentaries invariably omit to tell, is that the piles of bodies so horrorificly being bulldozed into mass graves were not “gassed” but were people who had died of typhus. Epidemics of typhus had broken out in most camps. For this reason one of the key elements of the judgement at Nuremberg was that the Nazis had done “little or nothing” to prevent the outbreak of typhus. -- and this calculated “negligence” qualified as an intentional war crime.

And now that the sewage mains have broken in Gaza, what does the Israeli government says? It threatens a “fiasco”.

©WCG, 2008

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Olmert Tries to Wake up Sleeping Morons at the Times

Other than morons and the U.S. mudia.... was there anybody in the world who fell for the Annapolis Farce last November, when the Administration made a Big Push and lots of noise promising peace in Palestine before Bush left his throne? No. In fact the farce was so obvious, so boring and so irrelevant to reality, that it hardly got covered.

But in case anyone was too terminally stupid not to have figured out the sham, now comes Ehud Olmert who announced today to an audience of fanatically faithfull Jewish-American leaders that the goal of peace talks with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was to reach an understanding on "basic principles" for a Palestinian state by the end of 2008, rather than a fully-fledged agreement.

In other words deal in Bush's term. Got that Condi? No agreements on "specifics". In fact no agreement at all, except endless Israeli evasion under cover of crap for the stupid. Crap no doubt dished out in gob-fulls by the editors and word hacks at the Spew York Times.

Olmert also said on Sunday that the Israeli army had a "free hand" to target anyone in the Gaza Strip, particularly ruling Hamas members, to stop cross-border rocket fire.

Got that? "Anyone" To target "anyone" includes women and children, particularly if they are engaged in a "shopping spree" for food.

©WCG, 2008

Friday, February 15, 2008

Look at Yourself - America

Photo by Tim Heatherington (published in Vanity Fair)

Look at yourself America. This is you and this is your son. This is what Cheney-Bush-Rove, what Jingoid Republicans, Smirking Billy Kristol and his ZioCons, what Morally Bankrupt Demorats, Avaricious Corporations, a Whore Press and a Feckless False-Issue Left have done to you. Look.

Needless to say, Tim Heatherington's photograph got little play in the Murkan Mudia. It is posted here with acknowledgement to help, in a small way, give it the dissemination it deserves.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

All the Fetish that’s Fit to Print

Ever the shill for Big Plunder, the New York Times has gotten its Mexican steppinfechit to assure the world that NAFTA is a great thing for Mexico and the only problem is that those stupid Indian tortilla eaters don’t know it.

It is a lamentable fact that it is easier to throw a spanner into the works than to undo the damage done, and to unravel the heap of lies and sophistical tricks neatly packaged into two pages of the Times by OpEditor Eduardo Porter. Ultimately people of goodwill tire of the effort, which is why, in the latter day the venal and their lackeys get lined up against a wall and mowed down.

At bottom, though, Porter is just a fetishist -- a person whose mind elaborates self-gratifying fantasies in support of an arbitrary object of devotion, in this case his Invisible Hand. But the fantasy is a distortion of objective realities, which is which is why objective facts have to be confused or ignored in order to save the fetish.

Big Sugar & Wee Corn are Two Peas in a Pod

Porter begins with a confusion. Noting that the endlosung of NAFTA went into effect last month, Porter informs us that “Mexican corn farmers and American Big Sugar hate this unreservedly.”

Cute. Porter grounds his argument in the well-known sophistical trick of insinuating a false equality based on an irrelevant common feature. The reader is being set up to loose sight of the fact that in all substantial respects Mexican farmers (the campesino variety) and Big Sugar have nothing, nothing, nothing at all in common.

But in case you didn’t get fooled at first, Porter makes sure the QED is clear: “This shared outrage underscores how egalitarian free trade is.”

No it doesn’t. It shows only that “free-trade” has managed step on two different sets of toes. If NAFTA were really egalitarian it would step on everyone’s toes. But if it did that, it sure as hell would not be law. Anyone who knows anything about NAFTA knows that in its very operative terms and explicit provisions it is not egalitarian.

Porter also knows that Big Sugar and li’l campesino are not in pari-materia but he tries to blur the distinction by jumping back and forth between “sugar issues” and “corn issues” so that by talking about them at the same time, they will seem to involve the same factors. They don’t.

High Fructose OpEd

According to Porter, “Free trade in sugar within North America will allow cheaper Mexican sugar to flood in [to the United States], .... Mexico’s rural poor, even if they don’t believe it now, are likely to come out ahead.”

How? How will the rural poor come out ahead?

The clear and necessary implication for Porter's pronouncement is that “rural poor” Mexican sugar farmers.... Jose y Pablo... will benefit from this flooding even if they are too damn stupid to realize that no tariffs on their sugar makes their sugar competitive abroad.

What Porter doesn’t tell his readers is that “Mexico’s rural poor” are not sugar growers. No. Mexico’s rural poor might work as underpaid day laborers in big cane fields or sugar mills, but they are not sugar growers. What “free trade in sugar” will benefit is Big Mexican Sugar. Porter knows this, because after digressing to talk about corn he bounces back to the sugar issue, and says.
“ America’s sugar barons ... first cut a deal with Mexico’s sugar barons that would have created a new system limiting trade in sugar and other sweeteners”
Got that? “Barons” Since when has a “baron” qualified as “rural poor”?

Striving hard to inform its readers, this editor of the Times slips and slides with fluid ease between "Mexican corn farmers," "the rural poor" and "Mexico's sugar barons." His style is so free and open ended that he never even bothers with pesky prepositional phrases which might delineate which way the "flooding" was going.

Although Porter does his clever best to occlude and confuse, this part of the NAFTA picture is really the battle of Big Sweet -- Mega Food Mex and Mega Food USA trying to lock up their respective turfs Whether NAFTA would benefit them or not the issue has nothing, nothing, nothing at all to do with Jose y Pablo.

Porter knows he has shuffled, switched and lied, because he concludes by saying “Opening up the sugar trade with Mexico will be good news for Americans: it will lead to lower sugar prices for everybody, from confectionary manufacturers to regular consumers.”

Rejoice Amurkans... you can now march on the road to diabetes ever more cheaply than before. This is good for you just as it’s good for Big Sugar. But notice, how the Mexican farmer suddenly dropped out of Porter’s egalitarian picture. Wasn't it supposed to be good for Mexico's rural poor and weren't they supposed to be too stupid to know it?

Uncle Sam becomes Tio Tortilla

When it comes to corn, Porter is no less ingenuous:
“ Mexican farmers fear that a flood of cheap agricultural imports from the United States will take away their meager livelihoods, and end a centuries-old way of life revolving around small-scale farming of corn.”
No... they don’t fear. They know. The “taking away of meager livelihoods” has been something they have directly experienced since 1994. It is not a question of fear, but of knowing. It is not a question of what might happen but of what has happened. Potter knows this too, because he goes on to spew that,
"NAFTA has already shaken up Mexican farming — mostly for the better. The value of agricultural imports from the United States has doubled since 1994, when tariffs started to gradually decline. Imports of corn have more than doubled by volume."
Mostly for the better for whom? How does the soaring value of imports and the doubling of imports beneft poor, small-scale farmers?

I will repeat the question : How does the soaring value of imports from the United States into Mexico benefit Mexican farming which presumably grows things to sell. Since when have cheaper foreign imports benefited domestic production?

This paragraph is simply scatological. There is simply no other way to describe it. Porter has the effrontery to say that soaring imports have “shaken up” the poor campesino for the “better”. Anyone who believes this, probably thinks vomit soup is a delicacy.

Porter knows that he is bullshitting through his lie-stained teeth because he goes on to say that “rural Mexico needs investment to increase yields and move out of corn and into more lucrative crops” and the Mexican Government “ will also need to help more rural Mexicans find jobs outside agriculture.”

Translation: Agi-Business needs to get in there and buy up the land, forget about corn... go into other globally-marketable stuffs...and let the Government figure out how to re-employ Jose y Pablo. You know... just the way ol’ Bill Clinton “re-tooled” the US work force for goo-paying- jops at McDonald's.

Porter concludes this by now utterly repulsive screed by pounding away at his article of faith: “NAFTA will be good news for Mexico’s consumers and many of its farmers.” Yeah... the big ones.

Howsoever Porter greases his slipping and sliding with equivocal terms. what it boils down to is that a well paid, well stuffed whore on the Times Editorial Board has taken up a full two pages of this very august newspaper to fill the reader’s mind with [you name it] to get you to think that NAFTA is a good thing when in fact it has left nothing but devastation in its wake.

The Devastations of Liberalism

The the lynchpin for "all the fetish that’s fit to print” is Porter’s claim that since the US produces yellow corn and the campesino grows white corn, the swamping of Mexico with yellow corn hasd no causal effect on the impoverishment of the white corn producing Mexican farmer.

He says this notwithstanding that he also says that NAFTA will make it necessary for campesinos to "find jobs outside agriculture." That is the strangest non-causal effect ever seen.

But even on its isolated merits, this lynchpin is so wobbly in its hole that it wouldn’t support a single tortilla. Estimates as of 2002 were that 1 in 3 tortillas were being made of yellow corn. But in actuality the grade & color of corn is not the critical factor at work. It is just a bogus difference in support of a bogus propaganda for the benefit of Big Plunder.

NAFTA is not just a question of “open trade over open borders”. It is a complex economic regime with equally complex causes and effects. The true fact is that the price of white corn is tied to and fluctuates with the price of yellow corn. The dumping of yellow corn on the Mexican market has devalued the return on white corn.

It is a plain fact that, by law, Mexico used to only allow the importation of corn when its farmers' production fell short of domestic needs. In other words, white or yellow, Mexico was buying domestically. NAFTA eliminated quotas limiting corn imports while at the same time allowing U.S. subsidy programs to remain in place. This promoted the dumping of corn into Mexico by U.S. agribusiness at below the actual cost of production. The price paid to farmers in Mexico for their corn fell by over 70%

The decline was not due solely to the mere fact of imports. A contributing reason for the decline is that in February 1995, the Mexican government was advised by the World Bank and IMF to continue to depress prices to reduce domestic grain production and to import supplies. It complied.

Another reason for the devastation of the small Mexican corn grower was that corn buyers in Mexico were offered very favorable loan rates available to them through U.S. export agencies. U.S. Commodity Credit Corporation which made corn-purchasing loans at 7% for three years, 1/4 of the rate Mexican banks were able to provide.

In other words, while the World Bank was ordering Mexico to depress local prices, U.S. export agencies were undercutting Mexican banks in order to promote corn sales that would undercut the Mexican farmer.

Liars like Porter would have his readers believe that NAFTA was simply a matter of “open borders” when in fact it is the fulcrum for a coordinated series of policies designed to despoil and plunder Mexico and the rest of Hispanic America.

Ask yourself, who these “corn buyers” are? Surely Laura y Maria aren’t applying for 7% loans to buy their daily tortillas. These “corn buyers” are in fact giant Mexican corporations like Minsa, Gimsa and Maseca, mass producers of agricultural products and food stuffs. But these Mexican produces are in turn heavily “invested” by U.S. agribusiness interests, like Cargill and ADM - who are responsible for fully two-thirds of all U.S.corn exports.

Since NAFTA, Birdseye, Green Giant, Campbell’s Soup, Hunt, Arthur Daniels Midland, Conagra, Cargill, and Tyson’s have all significantly increased their farming and processing operations in Mexico. While these companies’ profits have skyrocketed. rural poverty and unemployment has also skyrocketed.

In other words, what the neo-liberal regime boils down to is a strategy for Big Food to destroy the little guy. And the strategy includes US agribusiness taking over food production and processing in Mexico, with the assistance of “trade” policies, government subsidies, and IMF diktats.

Odious shills like Porter, decry that the rise in rural poverty is “just a correlation” that there are “other variables” at work to explain the decimation of the Mexican rural social-economy. But then these same word punks turn around and ignore those interlocking variables and talk about NAFTA as if it were just trading sugar for flour over the picket fence.

Ring In the Mall!

Porter’s screed betrays two other noteworthy facts. First, that he is himself aware of the social and human costs involved and second that he is willing to sacrifice human beings on the high pyramid of corporate greed.

Although Porter’s oblique reference to a “centuries-old way of life” may effectively hide what is at stake from the average US reader, those familiar with Mexican will know that Porter is saying to hell with a centuries old culture. Ring in the Mall!!!

Since before the arrival of the Spanish, the Mexican rural community was based on the ejido -- a form of communitarian homesteading of land. The land is owned by the community but is ‘farmed out’ to families who work it and who live on it from generation to generation so long as they continue to work it. The ejido was at the center of what the Spanish Administration used to refer to as the “Indian Republics.”

The phrase was apt, because at issue was, in microcosm, a “republic”. The ejido system is not just a “mechanism” of production but is the material undergirding for an entire way of life, that reaches into family structures, social morés and spirtual life. The Indian has tenaciously fought to preserve the ejido throughout the centuries and the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 was in one third part the revolt of ejidatarios against ...(guess)... Big Sugar which was poaching on Indian lands lands in the name of “efficient” production. That is what Zapatismo was all about.

Porter, who got his degree at UNAM, (Mexico's National University) knows the story full well. He is the latest crop -- escoria mas bien dicho -- of Mexican liberales.

In Mexico the word “liberal” retains its original and correct meaning, followed in the entire rest of the world, except the obfuscatory Spew York Times and US mudia. In a nutshell, a liberal is a person who believes in the Sanctity of the Invisible Hand and the all Beneficence of Market Forces.

Ever since the 1850’s the “liberal” regime in Mexico has done its best to destroy the peasantry. Their so-called “maximum hero” Benito Juarez, “freed” the peasant from the “bonds” of the ejido by allowing him to be a “free-hold” farmer. Result: the land was bought up by U.S. “investors” on the cheap. The peon was turned into a hired-day laborer who could spend his pittance getting drunk in pulquerías.

Juarez was one in that lamentable train of Mexican “intellectuals” who get drunk on foreign intoxicants to the great detriment of the people of the country.

Eventually the Juarez land reforms were “corrected” -- at least to the extent that further damage wasn’t done. But just as the Mexican peasant was recovering from that dubious benefit, he then had to face the encroachments of Big Rail and Big Sugar in the 1890’s and 1900’s. It was then the policy of the liberal Porfirian government, to develop the country by “investing it out” to foreign capital. And if some damn peon village stood in the way, to hell with it. In 1910, the campesino revolted as he will again, soon enough.

After 10 years of revolution, his hard fought way of life and the inviolability of the ejido was enshrined in the Constitution for near 70 years, until Salinas, that slimy, murderous gangster-mole, incubated in a Harvard test-tube, amended the constitution to, once again, take away the campesinos’ legal protections. NAFTA is the end of the process.

The Spew York Times will never let on. What it routinely excoriates as the “one party rule of the PRI” was in fact an essentially social-democratic regime modeled on modern European lines. It was not perfect (what politics is?); it was corrupt (what party isn’t?) -- but when all is said and done it was repudiation of a “free-for-all” market liberalism, in favor of a managed economy that, while fundamentally capitalist, protected certain social values and standards of living.

What rags like the Spew York Times call the “opening up” and “democratization” of Mexico was in actual fact a reversion to the economic savagery of 19th century liberal economics. Porter, who has never done any harder work than shovel his own palaver for Business World, the WSJ and now The Big Spew, thinks it is marvelous that the Mexican peasant can join the burgeoning lumpen proletariat in the cities.

Anyone who wants to behold Porter's demented vision of the good can travel to Mexico City, look beyond the ne plus ultra towering glass "statements" of Big Plunder -- dejando su planta en el suelo -- and behold the millions of once rural poor now living in urban hovels on top of garbage dumps

This is not to say that there are not problems involved in sustaining a way of life that is not maximally efficient from a purely economic point of view. It is a question of political-economy that many European countries, particularly France and Germany, have faced. Is preserving a way of life worth the economic cost? Can the small farmer, the European peasantry, the Mexican campesino have a role in a larger economy? The non-liberal answer is, Yes. It is often complicated and it involves “costs” just the way education, health, pensions also involve “costs” but the “costs” are considered worth it since it is also felt that human life is something more than fungible in the spinning vortex of exchange values.

Licking the Capitalist Boot

But Porter, like the rest of his crowd of liberales, don’t care about non-economic social values. For them, the “movement” of goods is a good in itself -- it has become their dominating fetish, which they obsesses over and thrill to to the exclusion of everything else. This is why, Porter can callously talk about“shifts” and “reallocations” and macro-benefits over the long run, even when the stupid people don’t realize how benefited they are.

Ever since some god first taught man to plant a weed, civilized life has consisted in a cycle of production and consumption. The problem with Porter and his crowd is that the cycle has become an end in itself.... something like a beloved and oft-licked boot.

All ideologies ultimately demand their own reinforcement by insisting that perceptions and concepts conform, ratify and thus perpetuate the ideology itself. To this extent fetishism is built into all “systems”. The way toward freedom is not to deny the necessity of production and consumption but rather not to idolatrize it.

That idolatry is the essence of what passes for Porter’s thought process. Uncontrolled movement of goods and money and profits is the only good he understands. He is so wedded to his fetish, that he cannot even explain how this un-restrained, gyrating vortex might benefit ordinary small people. Instead, licking furiously at the boot of his fetish, he insists that large “imports” of corn will benefit the poor Mexican farmer. To perpetuate his idolatry, he engages in false facts, absurdities and repeated thumping on his capitalist bible that NAFTA is good dammit, it’s good.

In fact, the only beneficiaries of this macro-system are the macro-players. Those that control the mass-production - mass consumption cycle. And the big corporate players are so heavily cross-invested, that it bears little relation to reality to speak Mexican versus American corporations. These labels are about as meaningless as the country of a ship’s registry. Under NAFTA what controls and benefits is simply Big Food.

But none of this disturbs shills like Porter who is so enthralled to his fetish that he can actually pen articles entitled. “Feeding the Rich Feeds the Poor

Ah yes! Le Brioche pour moi est le pain pour toi. Isn’t that right Porter?

In fact all Porter is doing is feeding the poor into Moloch’s Maw.

©WCG, 2008

Thursday, February 7, 2008

The Sweinstein Stench and the Schumer Shuffle

In November 2007, senawhores Feinstein and Schumer bolted ranks and voted to confirm fellow think-alike Mukasey as Attorney General. Nothing partisan here.

Explaining yet another one of her DemoPublican switcheroos Feinstein wrote in the LA Times (32 Nov 07) “Judge Mukasey is not Alberto R. Gonzales.” The Justice Department was demoralized and needed “a new dynamic of independence from the White House”

Feinstein acknowledged that “serious questions”had been raised about Mukasey’s “views on torture” but that he had assured her in a personal letter that he knew that water-boarding was “illegal” under US Military Law and the Geneva Conventions.

“Congress,” Feinstein wrote, “should go further and explicitly ban waterboarding and other so-called enhanced interrogation techniques for all parts of the government” presumably including the Post Office, the Department of Education and perhaps even the CIA.

Until then, however, “the bottom line” was that she “hope[d]” Judge Mukasey would “direct the Justice Department where the facts and the law lead, not where the White House dictates.”

Of course the real bottom line is that both Mukasey and Feinstein were hiding under The Rock of Technicalities -- waterboarding whether it was fun or folly was not yet “illegal” for the CIA.

Schumer was no less two-faced. In an article penned for the Spew York Times (06 Nov 07) he explained that he was voting for Mukasey because the Justice Deparment was in “desperate need of a strong leader, committed to depoliticizing the agency’s operations.” “Most important,” Schumer wrote, “Judge Mukasey has demonstrated his fidelity to the rule of law”

Ah... but then came the fine print on the encyclopedia installment purchase plan.... While Mukasey’s refusal to state that waterboarding was “illegal” was deeply unsatisfactory to Schumer --- deeply --- “ Congress is now considering — and I hope we will soon pass — a law that would explicitly ban the use of waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques. And I am confident that Judge Mukasey would enforce that law.”

Ah... the Schumer Shuffle... praise Mukasey for fidelity to legality, excoriate him not stating that waterboarding was “illegal” when it wasn’t and then express a pious hope that Congress might one day pass and Mukasey might one day enforce a law illegalizing waterboarding.

Actually, most people didn’t give a rats ass about Chuck's legalities. What most people found offensive was Mukasey’s helpless moral quandary as to whether dunking was torture or not, as a matter of painful fact.

The Schumer Shuffle concluded by stating that “if we block Judge Mukasey’s nomination and then learn in six months that waterboarding has continued unabated, that victory [for Law] will seem much less valuable. No one questions that Judge Mukasey would do much to remove the stench of politics from the Justice Department. I believe we should give him that chance.”

Ah... but the Stench from the Hill...

Today, Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reported
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said this morning that waterboarding was deemed legal by the Justice Department at the time it was used by the CIA on three al-Qaeda captives, and as a result the Justice Department "cannot possibly" investigate whether a crime occurred. . . .
Mukasey's remarks were a direct rebuff to demands from many leading Democrats this week that the Justice Department open a criminal probe into the CIA's use of waterboarding, . . .
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday that President Bush could approve the use of the tactic again and that such a decision would "depend on the circumstances," ...

Mukasey, is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee again, where no doubt he will be grilled with mock mercilessness by Schumer and Feinstein, who will demand that he follow a law Congress has not passed.

And the stench rolls on.

©WCG, 2008


The News: CIA Chief, Mike McConnell, told Congress yesterday that Al Qaeda had improved its ability to recruit, train and position operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States, producing militants, including new Western recruits, capable of blending into American society and attacking domestic targets.

The Quiz: What is the key word in this news? (a) ability (b) attacks (c) blending (d) domestic?

Most people, including most congressoids, will doubtless choose a, b and c: ability, attack, us. "Omygod... we need more security and fast!!

The true key word, of course, is “blending”. For six years now the US Government has been nabbing and deep-storing a whole bunch of them terrorist rag-heads -- brownish people that worship that heathen allah-fellow -- not good Jews and Gentiles, like us.

It really made no difference that that Mohammad fellow may have been an English citizen, or that what’s-his-name Ali Ah-whatever was a Canadian or that Padilla was a US subject . We all saw through that. All that was just a matter of probably falsely obtained passports. The guts of the matter is that they are “them” or at least “those”.

Some of us may have worried that these them types were being tortured or denied the basic protections of minimal due process; but, when all was said and done, our concern was basically a sort of legal-charity. Certainly, nothing we had to worry about that cut too close to our own bones.

Now comes Intelligence Chief McConnel to tell us that the big Al “Q” has produced blendable western attack agents. In other words, people that look just like you and me. And not just look, but have names like Smith, Scalia and Schmidt. Why, maybe even names like Sachs, Sulzberger and Schumer. Blendables.

What this means is that the proverbial “potential terrorist” includes people just like you and me. Which mean that in the eyes of our All Seeing All Beneficent State Guardian, people just like you and me are indistinguishable from “potential terrorists”.

Got it?

Welcome to Baghdad folks.

©WCG, 2008