An international body will be observing the Presidential general election this November, according to a report from CNN. The US State Department reportedly "invited" the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) "to monitor the election". The call for international monitoring of a US Presidential general election (unprecedented in American history), came after 13 "Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers." Annan rejected the call on the grounds that the Bush administration can only sanction it, and so "the Democrats" (unnamed in full; only two of the alleged thirteen) asked State Secretary Colin Powell for international monitoring, which led toward heated discussion in the House, "and Republicans got an amendment," according to the Associated Press, "to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections". The OSCE "will send a preliminary mission to Washington in September to assess the size, scope, logistics and cost of the mission," according to OSCE spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir, adding that it "will then determine how many observers are required and where in the United States they will be sent." Although, according to an anonymous "State Department spokesman", "'the OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States,'" he stated, according to CNN, that "the United States does not have any details on the size and composition of the observers or what countries will provide them." In a final note, nonewithstanding that it is unprecedented that the United States will have the monitoring from an international body of its general Presidential election, the OSCE did monitor the November 2002 mid-term election as well as the 2003 California recall.

The New York Times (www.nytimes.com*) posted this article ('Diplomacy Fails to Slow Advance of Nuclear Arms', */2004/08/08/politics/08nuke.html) in what appears to be a cut off. There's no 'next' button. Anywhere. At least at the moment.

The Baghdad office of al Jazeera, the world's largest Arab-language news network, has been shut down by the interim Iraqi government, according to a report by CNN. A "statement" from the Iraqi Interior Ministry read, in a ridiculous statement, that al Jazeera "has accepted to be the mouthpiece of terrorist and criminal groups thus contributing to attempts to impair security and achieve aims of terrorism in spreading terror in the minds of peaceful Iraqi citizens with activities that have nothing to do with acts of violence." This is outrageous; I have regularly read news from the English mirror of Jazeera, and it is nothing of the sort. Does covering terrorism equate to supporting it? Isn't al Jazeera the very kind of democratic mechanism we ought to hope for in Iraq or, for that matter, in the entire Middle East? Freedom of the press and criticism is the antidote to repressive state media, such as the propaganda organs of the regimes of Syria, Saudi Arabia, et. al., which view al Jazeera with hatred as it is a threat to their 'interests'. Do we want Iraq to become a repressive, police state, with an autocracy at its helm that rules by decree as to what its citizenry is allowed to be exposed to? If so, we cannot call it democracy.

I do not think I believe in global warming anymore:

The National Weather Service reports, tonight, "near record low temperatures expected" due to a "A STRONG COLD FRONT [that] PUSHED TROUGH THE REGION EARLY THURSDAY[,] ALLOWING NORTHERLY WINDS TO USHER IN A COLD CANADIAN AIRMASS. ... TEMPERATURES WILL QUICKLY FALL DURING THE LATE EVENING. BY DAWN[,] TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED TO RANGE FROM THE MID TO UPPER 50S IN DOWNTOWN WASHINGTON DC AND BALTIMORE[,] TO AROUND 50 IN THE OUTLYING SUBURBS[,] AND THE MIDDLE 40S IN THE HIGHER TERRAIN WEST OF THE BLUE RIDGE." According to general NWS statement, "Atypically cool, Canadian air by early August standards is in control of the Northeast and mid-Atlantic."

I know, I know, global warming deals with the increase of planet-wide, average temperature, but still, this weather is very unusual for this time of year.

Although quite long (145 min.) and not-so-well edited, nonetheless The Corporation is a fantastic documentary on the excesses of corporate wealth and power, and how, if not kept to account by the people who are directly affected by its influence, the corporation (which, legally, is a 'person' because of its nature as a singular entity that under the law is allowed to act as one) can become something of a monster to society, indeed. The film does not argue that the corporation is inherently evil; but, like most powerful, moneyed institutions, does have the capacity to do wrong to people. In short, to paraphrase, the film puts forth the premise, as the Bible also states, that the love of money is the root of all evil; in putting the profit margin and the 'bottom line' ahead of all other concerns, the corporation leaves much room for malfeasance, to say the least. Exploring many case-studies, such as Monsanto and its carcinogenic rBST milk-producing hormone, to IBM and its relationship with Nazi Germany as well as its complicity in the Holocaust, The Corporation is a film not free of bias, in that it classifies 'the corporation' as a 'psychopath' following a checklist of psychological conditions (being that a corporation is defined as a 'person', after all). Nonetheless, in light of its overt agenda it is a powerful film that is, above all, a warning: IF YOU PUT UNCONDITIONAL FAITH IN AN INSTITUTION WHOSE POWER NOW DOMINATES OUR SOCIETY, YOU GIVE THEM FREE REIGN TO DO WHATEVER WILL MAXIMIZE THEIR WEALTH AND POWER, OFTEN AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LESS PRIVILEGED AND POOR.

This is a Public Service Announcement:

Attention, 40% of registered voters who plan to actually cast their ballots this November: PLEASE DO NOT vote NADER-CAMEJO if you live in the following states,* listed in alphabetical order:

Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.

*The states in bold are those in which you not voting Nader-Camejo is especially important.

The intelligence upon which the latest terrorism alerts from the Homeland Security Department was based, according to an article from the Washington Post, came from reported al Qaeda 'surveillance' of US financial institutions 3+ years ago and, most significantly, predating September 11, 2001. So, is this new 'threat', unprecedented in its specific nature, really anything substantial? or, worse, is it just a diversion? If it is the latter, that would prove that this administration really has no shame. Homeland Security Secretary Ridge today defended the new terrorism threat in lieu of criticism of its validity, stating that "the government needed to take 'preemptive action' to warn the public that al Qaeda had been casing five U.S. financial institutions [the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank (Washington); the Citigroup Center, the New York Stock Exchange (New York), and Prudent Financial (Newark)], even if the alleged surveillance was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."* Seriously, what is with this administration and preemption? Either preemptive war (actually preventive) or, such a case as this, preemptive fear.

*Emphases added.

Although I am no longer linked to Karmaloop for some reason, I'm linked at it's new Korean mirror, aptly titled Karmaloop Korea (I hope that's South Korea, Greg). So if there are any South Koreans out there who would care to read whatever I think worthy enough to post (such as this), then go right ahead. No, seriously; please.

This Thursday I am seeing The Corporation, a documentary about the psychology of corporations as, in legal terms, the 'persons' that they are.* It appears very objective, has interviews with some of the best commentators in the field, including Noam Chomsky, and, from the preview, looks fantastic.

Also, the brilliant creators of South Park, one of my favorite TV shows, are releasing a new movie this October, Team America: World Police. Watch the trailer; it's funny as shit, and I can't wait to see another production from Matt and Trey (it reminds me of the South Park movie a little): it's a film that we need right now.

Tonight at 10 PM the Discovery Channel is scheduled to broadcast a program about the real identity of Christopher Columbus, "Columbus: Secrets From the Grave." Dramatically declaring, NO MAN HAS EVER GONE FURTHER TO HIDE HIS TRUE IDENTITY, the program will concern recent DNA testing ('genotyping') and "3D laser scanning" conducted by "forensic anthropologists" of the bones attributed to Columbus, who contributed toward the extermination of the native Arawak population of Hispaniola (as noted by historian Howard Zinn), from "the chest that holds his bones", owned by "his direct descendant Anunciada Colon". In addition to being a murderer from Genoa, like most conquerers, the program will ask whether Columbus could "have been a pirate, a Jew fleeing the [Spanish] Inquisition or the illegitimate son of a Spanish aristocrat", and will attempt to answer why Columbus went "to such great lengths to keep his origins a mystery". So, tune in. And, uh, drop out.

It's brilliant, indeed ... 

That's right. There's no need to adjust your computer. You are looking a picture on this website. For the first time during the 17 months that this site has been on the Internet I got a picture up here: for free, no less.

Watch out for the Russkies. 

Demme's re-make of The Manchurian Candidate looks great, but I think I should probably see the original first.

As another example of shit going very wrong in post-occupation Iraq, CNN reports that "Iraqi forces, insurgents, civilians and three U.S. service members lost their lives in violence Wednesday, among them at least 68 in a Baquba suicide bombing and 42 in fighting in south-central Iraq." You know, I really hope that we can get the fuck out of that mess as soon as possible with the least damage done. God damn.

And now, a passage from the journal of "prison pyschologist and U.S. Army Captain"* Gustave M. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diary, concerning an interview with Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering in his prison cell, during the Easter recess from the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg (April 18, 1946), with emphases added.

GOERING: "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."

GILBERT: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

GOERING: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

After reading the first two chapters of the exhaustively researched 9-11 Commission final report (see below for the link to it in its entirety), I commend the bipartisan committee for its excellent, objective work at piecing together, almost on a minute-by-minute basis, the circumstances and actions surrounding what happened on that terrible day.

The second chapter deals with the broader, historical context regarding the rise of Islamist radicalism and, particularly, Osama bin Laden's brand of it, al Qaeda, whose history is meticulously dissected and recorded. Although I am only up to page 71 of the report, I do not see any political bias at all, regardless of what, say, Fox News Channel may say about the Commission or its Report.

Also, concerning one of the more controversial findings of the Commission -- the one that flatly rejected the notion that al Qaeda and Iraq had solid ties -- is not entirely represented by the mainstream.

Here's the full story on the relationship between the state of Iraq and al Qaeda, according to the findings of the Commission (emphases added): "There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin" (p. 66).

However, "In March 1998, ... two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. ... According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States." In light of all this, the Report concludes that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." Furthermore, no evidence was found by the Commission "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" (id.)

The very well-documented Report, complete with 1,742 endnotes (pp. 451-567), is not to pass unnoticed. At least I can reserve my final judgment until I finish reading it. But, at 585 pages, it is quite lengthy, although the actual text of the Report does not begin until page 17, which puts the length of the actual Report at an easier-to-digest 568 pages (3% less).

The 9-11 Commission (the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) released its final, 585-page report ("The 9/11 Commission Report") Thursday, available as a PDF file in full here.

In a controversial move, the United Nations voted 150-6 to endorse "a resolution demanding that Israel comply" with the ruling of the International Court of Justice at The Hague "to dismantle its West Bank barrier," according to a report from BBC News.

 

According to al Jazeera, the largest Arab-language news network, many Palestinians see the barricade/wall/fence as, bluntly put, an 'apartheid wall', which personally seems extreme (my view is that it is simply a wall). Whether this degrades the social standing of Palestinians even further from their current second-class citizen status to the point at which it can be compared to South African apartheid is, well, arguable at best.

 

There were 10 abstentions to the vote, and among the nations opposed were the United States and, of course, Israel. The 'security fence' (a.k.a. 'apartheid wall' or barricade) currently being constructed will cut relatively deep into Palestinian territory, which is the cause of the controversy over the issue as many Palestinians (the US Census Bureau estimates that the population of Palestinians living in the West Bank is roughly two million) see as a 'land grab'.

 

Israeli Defense Force (IDF) plans entail the construction of enclaves inside the West Bank that appear to divide off sections of the West Bank into segregated cantons, known quite simply as the 'Encirclement Fence' (David Makovsky, "How to Build a Fence," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2004, vol. 83/no. 2, p. 60).

 

Under the IDF plan, the so-called fence will excise 47% of Palestinian territory and there will be 118 Israeli settlements (as opposed to 52 settlements under the Israeli Ministry of Defense plan, 45 according to the 'Clinton Parameters', and 18 under the Geneva Accords) on the 'Israeli side' of the fence (ibid., p. 61), which under the 'encirclement' plan will cut far into West Bank territory, even more so than what is currently being constructed. (Imagine the global outcry from humanitarian groups and the like if the 'encirclement' plan, much less the current one in effect by the Ministry of Defense, were to be implemented.)

 

Under the current scenario, which has elicited global condemnation -- from the ICJ for instance and, now, the UN, in addition to 'Arab world' opinion -- 14.5% of Palestinian land is being annexed and 10,940 Palestinians (id.) are being displaced, roughly .5% of the population of the West Bank.

 

The idea of segregating a whole population of a particular group of people (the Palestinians) is disturbingly reminiscent of the ghettoes in which the Jews were forced to live cordoned off from the rest of society by the Germans, although it must be made clear that I, a Jew myself, am NOT comparing the state of Israel to Nazi Germany, but rather that the policies of the Sharon administration and the IDF toward the Palestinian people are about as disturbing as the PLO's policy toward the Jewish people, which is to drive them to the sea; Sharon's policy is to keep the Palestinians as second-class citizens, and segregated from society in name of 'security'. Of course, this is a completely outrageous, unacceptable observation and for that I most sincerely apologize.

 

Again, as a Jew, however, I very much support Israel's right to exist as much as any nation's. However, I am deeply troubled that its Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, may be sending his nation down the path of a very dark road, and I hope that the two peoples in that troubled land may someday find a way to co-exist and seek a peace between themselves. A wall, be it in the form of any name, is not the answer. It will only make the problem worse, and continue to ensure that the devastating cycle of resentment and violence may only continue.

Although I do not believe there is any 'liberal bias' in US mainstream media (e.g. the Associated Press, CNN, Washington Post, etc.), here's a site that does posit that view, complete with a very convenient, collated list of instances where "liberal bias, agendas, distortions and erroneous reporting" appears by paper, big and small.

The 9-11 Commission (also known as the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) is scheduled to release its final report on Thursday, 22 July. Here's their press statement. Hopefully the report won't be too laden with rhetoric and will just get right to the facts that the Commission has found. In which case, it's probably going to be a very long report.

There's a new, cheaper iPod now that has longer battery life. Oh, yeah, and if you happen to have a brand-new BMW, you can get an adapter so that your brand-new iPod can seamlessly be integrated into the pre-existing sound system. Elitist bastards; why doesn't Starbucks have a franchise where you can have your own espresso machine in your Mercedes. I don't have a fuckin' BMW, but I do have an iPod: 5 GB, first-generation. Yeah, with the scroll wheel. Sure, it's not one of the new ones with no moving parts or the cool, touch-sensitive buttons. It's one of the first, and sort of clunky and heavy by comparison. But I don't care. It's still fuckin' awesome to me.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory has been shut down due to a number of disks containing classified nuclear information that are missing and unaccounted for. According to an article from Wired News, the director of the lab, George P. "Pete" Nanos, Jr., "'has suspended all operations at the laboratory,'" according to "an internal e-mail obtained by Wired News". On July 15, Nanos "suspended all classified work at Los Alamos, after officials there lost track of a pair of Zip disks and two external hard drives containing classified information." Los Alamos "is under fire for losing track of its classified material three times in the last eight months." According to Danielle Brian, the "executive director of the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight", Nanos said that "'these guys aren't taking security or safety seriously. I'm shutting this place down until they do.'" I hope that the site of the research and development of the first atomic bomb and the foremost nuclear lab in the US can get its shit together. (This story was heavily buried in the Washington Post, as one of the Nation In Brief articles on page A17.)

Just in case you are in doubt of the facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, you can consult the 'Notes + Sources' for the movie, collated and published on Michael Moore's website. (Here's the link to the documentation.) Check it out.

You know, there's a reason why Fahrenheit 9/11 is not doing relatively as well as, say, Spider-Man 2. Although it has thus grossed about $60 million (with an opening weekened of $22 million, a record for a documentary), there are some who are saying that it is only doing mediocre, and they have their theories to account for this. I have mine, and it is a very simple, logical one, free of any ideological constraints or partisan bantering: the rating and the size and scope of the release. The MPAA, up until a few days before the US release, was being appealed for a PG-13 rating; didn't happen. So, less people are allowed to see the film. Also, the limited release, ensured by the 'controversial' content of the film, the criticism from the mainstream media, and the few pressure groups that intimidated theatres from showing the film (à la The Passion of the Christ, a film that Fahrenheit 9/11 is being compared to, although the Passion was not, to my knowledge, very political) set the barrier up to which the film could grow into the hearts of Americans. Usually I'm not this eloquent, and for that I apologize.

A report released today by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence through the New York Times, "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," includes 117 'conclusions' that damn the CIA for distorting intelligence on Iraqi capability regarding its alleged biological, chemical, and nuclear arsenals (WMD). In trademark bureaucratic newspeak, the paper reads, "Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting." Some of the findings in the report are redacted, but it is pretty damning nonetheless.

Disney, in a limited national release, distributed a film to, they believe, counteract Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, titled America's Heart and Soul.

I'm not even done reviewing Ann Coulter latest book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, and I've learned that she is coming out with a new one to hit bookstores this fall, titled, How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter. I'll probably read it, you know, by checking it out from a library as I did with Treason. I'd never give that bitch money. But as the Bible says, Know Thy Enemy. And so I set out to do so. But, you see, I already know her world outlook, and it is insane, so in all honesty I don't think I'll need to read her newest book, which you can pre-order on Amazon. It should be a funny read, nevertheless; but, not until I'm done reviewing Treason. (I don't know how I'm going to post that review here; it's sort of long.)

Now that Iraq is officially a 'free' nation, you know, because we transferred 'total sovereignty' to the interim Iraqi 'government', are our troops getting out of there anytime soon? Well, according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor: "US troops ... are suffering from low morale that has in some cases hit 'rock bottom.' ... 'Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom,' said ... an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq. ... 'Faced with continued resistance [from insurgents], [the] Department of Defense now plans to keep a larger force in Iraq than anticipated for a period of time,' Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, explained in a statement to families a month ago. ... The open-ended deployments in Iraq are lowering morale among some ground troops, who say constantly shifting time tables are reducing confidence in their leadership. 'The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all,' a soldier in Iraq wrote in a letter to Congress."

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. It is an excellent, brilliant work of cinema. I estimate that it's impact will be pretty huge. The New York Times has, in fact, a whole section devoted to the 'controversial' film ("Spotlight on 'Fahrenheit 9/11'"), including a review by A.O. Scott ("Unruly Scorn Leaves Room for Restraint, but Not a Lot") and an op-ed column by David Brooks ("All Hail Moore"). Rolling Stone gave the documentary a decidedly positive review, scoring it at ***1/2.

The US military handed over partial sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government two days before officially planned, due to the fact that Iraq is in a state of a sort of civil war. Iraqis will not have a fully sovereign, free nation, however, until the January 2005 election. Until then, over 100,000 US troops will still be in Iraq to maintain order, which seems to be rapidly slipping away. I hope for the best in Iraq; the Iraqi people have had a long, tragic history, and I hope that what we have done will, for the long run, be a good thing for the benefit of all.

Got the new CD by the Beastie Boys yesterday, To The 5 Boroughs. It's really great: evocative of the great, old-school rap and laden with adept delivery and masterful lyricism, embedded with a strong sense of social and political consciousness. Rolling Stone gave the album five stars; here's their review.

Seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 on Monday. Can't wait. I can see that it is quickly becoming perhaps one of the most divisive films in history. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Moore, for his courage, his views. My political perspective can be essentially boiled down to this: I believe in common sense, and I think that if doesn't make sense, then it's not worth my time and thought. That's all.

For the most part, I have decided to steer clear of any official reviews of Fahrenheit 9/11. As with most movies I go to see, I want to have a clear head on the matter and let me form opinions myself. That's fair, right? I think so.

So fuckin' psyched to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Too bad I'll be at American University for two weeks (which will be fun; journalism stuff), but maybe I can still see it. Maybe I should get one of them advance screening tickets. I heard that Moore appealed the MPAA for a PG-13 rating, so that kids who might get drafted in a few years will at least be able to see what's going on in a country that they somewhere down the road might be sent to. Currently the film is "not yet rated," according to the latest TV spot, though it was rated R only a week ago.

There it is. I like it. And don't let the number fool you, 'cuz this site's been around for a while; and according to what I can remember, the counter was at around 1250 or around that when it fucked up and, uh, apparently self-destructed.

A 27-member coalition -- Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change* -- is opposing the Bush administration, and does not want his reelection in November, on the grounds that it has not lived up to its responsibilities and "does not understand the world and remains unable to handle 'in either style or substance' the responsibilities of global leadership," according to a buried article** in the Washington Post.

Among the 27 members of the *DMCC are Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Reagan administration, and Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, "commander in chief" of US CENTCOM during the Bush I administration. Only one of the twenty-seven in the group described himself as affiliated with the Kerry campaign: Ret. Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who was a "former U.S. Air Force chief of staff and "the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996" and "joined Veterans for Bush in 2000." In a interview with al Jazeera on the DMCC's criticism of the Bush administration, State Secretary Colin Powell explained things clearly.

"I disagree that the United States is so isolated, as they say," [Powell] told the Qatar-based satellite television network. "I mean, the president has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in order to gain the support of the international community. We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?"

It is very telling when a group composed of former envoys, ambassadors, generals, etc. (two of which are named above) goes against an administration that one would think they would endorse, at least implicitly; it is especially illustrative when former members of the Reagan and Bush I administrations are now opposed to that of Bush II. This looks like the beginning of the end for Bush, Rummy & Co. The DMCC's official statement can be found here.

**It's on page A22.

Tomorrow morning, early, at around 5 in the morning, I'm going to leave for Los Angeles for a few days, so that's where I'll be. Peace.

Today I went to the protest in DC that I mentioned before. It is incredible. I would say there were people, of a large cross-section of races, ethnicities, and nationalities, in the thousands. The march, from Layfette Square to War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's official residence (which I am sure is unprecedented in its audacity), went on for at least an hour, about two miles. It was one of the greatest things I've ever been involved with. You really feel like you're a part of something much, much bigger than yourself, a part of history. Although there were a few there that gave us a bad name (such as one who equated Israelis and the Palestinians with the Nazis and the Jews, or the ones with the sign that read: "Support the Resistance: Free Saddam," which was really ridiculous), for the most part the messages that most people there had were ones that any sane American can agree with. As we marched through the ghettoes, in particular, it was really something to see people on the stoop of their homes, shouting with us and cheering us on. I sensed some trouble (fortunately none came to pass) when the police barricaded most of us from getting any closer to Rummy's multi-million dollar mansion and one of the people was like, "Seig hail!" I sighed, knowing that that was a particularly stupid (and, yeah, retarded) thing to do. Fortunately, after we began chanting and all, the Feds caved in and let us through. Shouting "The People United Will Never Be Defeated!" we marched on through to meet up with the small group of protestors at the front who had inexplicably gotten through. A list of people made speeches there, including Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg (who was beheaded by Iraqi militants). Ironically, one of the pitifully small group of counter-protestors who were closer to Rummy's house (of course) held a poster that included a photo of Nick Berg before his decapitation, and at the same time that man's father was denouncing the administration for letting it happen. You could really smell it in the air: the thunder of democratic change. Sorry. Excuse the lameness of that, but that's how it was. I tell ya: come November 2nd, we are going to see the closest election this nation has ever had, and the result will seal our fate (for better or worse). An Associated Press wire from the Washington Post has the story, although the article cites the number of protestors as "several hundred." The number of protestors went on as long as the eye can see; it had to have been in the thousands. But what do I know? After all, I was only right there in the middle of it, so what do I know? And the breaking news at this moment is the death of Fmr. Pres. Ronald Reagan, which is currently dominating headlines and will (no doubt) be the leading headline in the 'liberal media' tomorrow. But not to worry, those not in the DC area will hear about the massive protest if they flip through tomorrow's Post for a few minutes. They'll find it ... somewhere. But anyhow, the Great June 5 DC Protest is an event I'll never forget. All I can do now is quote the great Bob Dylan, who once said that "the times they are a-changin'"; they are, indeed.

Michael Moore's latest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, opens in theatres nationally on June 25th! The two distributors, IFC Films and Lions Gate Productions are both distributing the film. Shit, this is so dope: the film will be in "a record number of screens for a documentary," according to Moore on his website. I can't fuckin' wait.

UPDATE: I have just seen the trailer for the film, and I am really psyched about it. It's really gonna be great. You can check it out here, though the official site claims (due to high volume of traffic) that it is unavailable at the present time. (QuickTime req'd to view trailer.)

Upon his visit to the Vatican, Bush was greeted by half-a-million Romans protesting the war in Iraq. Oh, and the Vatican itself is strong opposed to the war. Thank God we have allies, right? Secondly, the June 5 protest in DC is, well, tomorrow. So, uh, I'm going. Tryin' to think of a good sign, though. Hmm ...

The Bush/Cheney propaganda machine is getting desperate, resorting to attacks 'unprecedented' in their negative, misleading tone toward Kerry. According to an article in the Washington Post, the amount of negative ads directed toward Kerry by the Bush campaign has been described by "scholars and political strategists" as "extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts." Furthermore, "Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising." In fact, "Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate." For instance, the Bush campaign has accused Kerry of criticizing the validity of the War on Terrorism, wanting to do away with wiretaps on suspected terrorists, wanting to raise the gasoline tax, and 'flip-flopping' on changes in the education system, although he "did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications." To see the Bush attack machine as it begins to run on empty, consider the following:

"In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would 'gut the intelligence services.' Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting. ... On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion.' Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals. On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry 'supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax' and saying, 'If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year.' But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current."

According to Darrell West, professor at Brown University, "Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns." In addition, due to the unparalleled earliness (?) of the attack ads in a presidential election year, West -- "author of a book on political advertising" -- believes that 2004 will be "'the most negative campaign ever,' eclipsing 1988," in which Bush the Elder attacked Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis for his patriotism (not surprisingly, Bush Jr. and Karl Rove are using practically the same attack formula on Kerry).

Whatever your political beliefs may be, it looks pretty clear that 2004 will be an election year that might be one of the most important in our nation's history.

According to an article by the Washington Post, the New York Times has admitted in a note "from the editors" of the paper that its coverage of Iraqi WMD was lacking, at best. The Times now acknowledges that the paper's "coverage of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction 'was not as rigorous as it shold have been' and that 'we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged--or failed to emerge.'" The Post cited five instances in which the Times had fallen prey to the Bush administration propaganda machine that pushed a false rationale for war with Iraq on the basis of the (nonexistent) WMD in question. It is very disturbing when the largest paper in the United States, the "Newspaper of Record," oft-described as part of the American "liberal media" establishment, doesn't do its job and instead parrots government rhetoric without second thought. As Thomas Jefferson once said that the path toward a tyrannical government is one that is not questioned; our free press must exercise the right of dissent, which Jefferson referred to as "the highest form" of patriotism. If the largest mainstream newspaper in our free society won't do it, who will?

According to a new report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), al Qaeda "has more than 18,000 potential terrorists," and its support base is growing, as reported by CNN. The IISS believes that al Qaeda "poses a growing threat to Western interests and attacks are likely to increase," and that the terrorist organization "will continue carrying out attacks on 'soft targets encompassing Americans, Europeans and Israelis and aiding the insurgency in Iraq,'" according to IISS director John Chipman. I'm sorry, but didn't the Bush administration say with a straight face that going to war with Iraq would actually make the world safer and "remove a key ally of al Qaeda" (Bush's words, on his May 1, 2003 'Mission Accomplished' speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln), ignoring that Osama bin Laden -- an Islamic fundamentalist -- and Saddam Hussein, an atheistic ex-tyrant -- hate each other; in fact, in one audio tape attributed to bin Laden, the murderer referred to the other as a "secular infidel."

In tonight's primetime television address, Bush laid out a five-point plan toward defeating evil and ensuring the vision of freedom for all in the world, especially in the Middle East. Oh, yeah, and toward the more realistic end of getting us out of the mess in Iraq. This administration is downright arrogant to think that it alone can perfect the world in its image. In the case of the Middle East, I don't think the utopian vision of Jeffersonian democracy will happen any time soon. In essence, the Bush regime plan is:

1) to hand over "full sovereignty" to the Iraqi people on June 30 (another lie by Bush: the interim government will not have full sovereign powers until the general elections in January 2005),

2) help the Army of South Vietnam - er, the Iraqi police - improve their security from the "terrorists" (whoever they are; we don't really know, aside from Muqtada al-Sadr's militia or anonymous "insurgents"),

3) rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, brilliantly destroyed in the March 2003 blitzkrieg,

4) help the TBA interim puppet government hold general "elections" next year, and

5) internationalize the war, drawing from the UN and major nations who we didn't give a flying fuck about when Bush-n-Co. decided, in its resolute war march, to wholly destabilize the region and make us and the world many times less safe last March.

Plus, his embarrassing mispronunciation of the Abu Ghraib prison was funny, albeit the serious nature surrounding it. Let's forget that the incidents there were representative of official interrogation methods approved by the Pentagon, such as in Guantanamo.

Michael Moore's latest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, has won the Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or, the French equivalent of the Oscar. Disney, the parent company of Miramax, which was going to distribute the film, has barred it from doing so. CEO Michael Eisner is afraid of pissing off Gov. Jeb Bush and being deprived of millions of dollars in tax breaks for his Florida theme parks. Now, many might think that the Cannes win, which is the first Palme d'Or to go to a documentary since 1956, is biased because, you know, it's the French. Wrong. The jury, headed by virtuoso filmmaker/genius Quentin Tarantino, is made up of four Americans in which only one is French, according to Moore. Perhaps because of Eisner being a complete bitch, the film will actually be released a week before the general election this year, thus making the rumor true? Who knows.

Some crazy shit is going down in Israel. I got these articles from the BBC and al Jazeera that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) is launching some sort of offensive in Rafah, a Palestinian settlement of some kind in Gaza. The BBC article is reporting a UN resolution condemning the attacks, which have killed 10 Palestinian civilians and injured 60 (the US abstaining), and al Jazeera is referring to the incident as a "massacre". In addition to this, the IDF is also apparently demolishing the homes of the Palestinian people living in the area. Is it just me, or does this policy sound suicidal for Israel? As a Jew, I am deeply concerned for the nation's future in the face of brutal terrorist attacks by Arab extremists, but I cannot condone the arbitrary killing of Palestinians and the destruction of their homes. Do the ends justify the means, after all?

Ill Bill's latest album, What's Wrong With Bill?, is incredible. Ill Bill (not to be confused with the great movie, Kill Bill) is a virtuoso lyricist, seamlessly splicing in politics, life on the street, and ... well ... pretty much everything. Oh, yeah, and the beats kick ass. Although near the end my copy of the CD got sort of choppy-sounding (kinda distracting from the music; I'm sure it's scratched or somethin'), this album is fuckin' awesome.

I've been meaning to write these myself, but I came across this first: the Articles of Impeachment against the Bush administration. Here's a transcript from the source:

Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General John David Ashcroft

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and
subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out withimpunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rightsof the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperialexecutive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and thosereserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities andlocations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its
government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secretand other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion ofprisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments andindividuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreigngovernments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the mediaand foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

I just saw the most amazing episode of the Simpsons. Arrested for treason, the family is sent to Alcatraz (although if I had any say in the writing of it, it would be Guantanamo), where they are "reeducated" along with the other traitors, including Bill Clinton, Al Franken, and others. I really had no idea that they would even think of going that far. It's really incredible. I can't wait to see what sort of backlash will ensue.

'Brood X' has begun to return in full force, and there has begun to develop a really strange buzzing sound, sort of like the beltway, but more ... I don't know, it's hard to say. Secondly, I've begun writing a really belated review of Ann Coulter*'s book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, which you will see here whenever I am done with it.

*Here's a link to what I had to say about her about five months ago.

A new ad by the Republican National Committee describes how presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry is a lot like one of the 17-year cicadas. Check it out. It's really ridiculous.

According to an MSNBC "Question of the Day," out of over 166,000 who responded 53% believe that the "media SHOULD NOT show graphic acts of terrorism," and 47% believe that the "media SHOULD show acts of terrorism, graphic or otherwise" (emphasis added). Personally, I believe that if acts of terrorism are not shown, how can there be a response to them? The attacks of September 11 definitely qualify as graphic acts of terrorism; rightly, they were shown. It raises a legitimate question: Is a beheading (in of itself) any more barbaric, or graphic, than jets being hijacked by Muslim fundamentalists and crashed into buildings, murdering 3,000 innocent civilians? I leave that question to you.

The Memory Hole website*, run by the very patriotic Russ Kick, is temporarily down. Allegedly, they're switching servers.

*It would be kinda pointless to make this a hyperlink right now, right?

Got a new template. It has dimension, you know? And some cool, um, graphic stuff. Anyways, tell me how you like it.

On June 5th there will be a rally at the Pentagon protesting the ongoing occupation of Iraq. I'll be there, and I encourage everyone who can to come, too.

It is strange that there is not as much an outcry against the administration's lies regarding Iraq's imaginary WMDs as, rightly, there is against its neglect toward the prison abuse and torture in Abu Ghaibri, both of which have been very damaging to our standing and credibility throughout the world. And, amid all of the talk of the abuse in Iraqi prisons, there is a relative lack of discussion about the other human rights situation in Guantanamo regarding the detainees, many of whom are only suspected of being so-called "terrorists".

Bush, Cheney, and Rummy ought to be run out like the rats that they are. Oh, and don't forget Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, the fuckers.

King George II has requested an additional $25,000,000,000 for Iraq and Afghanistan, which we don't really hear that much about these days. The original 87 billion was largely spent not on reconstruction of the beleaguered country but on security, which doesn't seem to be helping out very much. The war machine being maintained by the administration cannot for much longer hold together.

It is ridiculous that Disney is not letting its subsidiary, Miramax Films, release Michael Moore's newest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. We live in a free society: Let him release his film. It needs to be seen in these turbulent times. About how Bush exploited the tragedies of September 11 in order to advance a radical, neoconservative agenda, Fahrenheit 9/11 promises to be perhaps the most controversial film of the year (aside from A Day Without a Mexican, which is a sort of comedy about what would happen to the Californian economy if all of their Hispanic population mysteriously disappeared one day). I hope Michael Moore's new film will help get this fucker out of office; I can't wait to see it.

It's been a year since Bush declared, on the USS Abraham Lincoln with a gigantic "Mission Accomplished" sign hanging over it, the end of "major combat operations" in Iraq, and it looks like we're still fighting the fucking war. Well, when are we going to end this thing? When will the generals start to say, "Well, the only way to save a town [Fallujah] is to destroy it [or hand it over to the control of a former general under Saddam's regime]?" Oh, wait; I guess they already have. And then, of course, there is the news of the horrible incidents of Iraqi prisoners being abused by some US soldiers. Truly terrible. The most ironic thing of it all is that it happened (in November and December of 2003, by the way; the military must have kept it under wraps since then until now) in a prison in which a lot of the abuse and torture conducted by Saddam's regime took place, the Abu Ghaibri (I know I'm not spelling that right) prison. This certainly isn't as bad as the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and ... oh, shit, I'm told that I am not allowed to compare Iraq to Vietnam. Sorry for that, ladies and gentlemen, I erred grossly and for that I humbly apologize to the Blogger Corporation. Anyhow, I am still waiting for a legitimate response to that letter I sent to Mr. Krauthammer, aside from that message I got automatically. You know, the ones that go, Thank you for your comments. Of course, Mr. Krauthammer cannot personally answer each email he receives due to the volume of these emails, you can be rest assured that they will be read by his team ... and so forth. I gotta go.

Happy May Day, everyone. Long Live Communism! No, wait; Communism sucks. Boo, boo, down with Communism. Eh, whatever.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer's latest editorial in the Washington Post, titled "The Real Mideast 'Poison'," to me seems a little narrow-minded. Well, here's what I sent him:

In your editiorial, "The Real Mideast 'Poison'," published the day before in a column in Houston Chronicle under the more telling title, "The Absurdity of Criticism Against Israel", you say that anti-Semitism "has gone global." Sure, criticism of Israel is high now because of the anger of much of the Arab world since the US invasion of Iraq, but is that anti-Semitism? I don't think so, just as much as criticism of the US government isn't anti-American; in fact, criticism of the government, to a large extent, defines a democracy society, including Israel, which you rightly term the only true democracy in the region. The most important issue here, I think, concerning this, is whether the actions of the Sharon administration will actually lead toward peace in the Middle East, or rather will further accelerate the cycle of violence. You mention Israel's offer to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip, and how this has led to Israel being "almost universally attacked." However, the criticism was because the administration's plan for the *West Bank* included annexing some Palestinian territory. You mention how Israel "will also evacuate four small West Bank settlements," but you omit the other settlements that will remain. You mention that the Arab people, as a whole group and not particularly as any group of radical militarists like, say, al Qaeda, "have variously denounced [the plan for "withdrawal" from the West Bank] as Israeli unilateralism." What many Arabs, not "the Arabs," are criticizing is the deliberate territorial expansion being pursued by the Sharon administration into Palestinian territory, for which I see no other possible future other than the perpetuating of violence and terrorism. The Palestinian people deserve the same rights as the Israeli people, and land to call their own, as well. The security "fence" being erected is, as a writer for Foreign Affairs noted in the Feb./Mar. issue, an "admission of failure"; it is also a mistake, for the reason that it will only continue to foster resentment by the Palestinian people toward the Israelis: al-Jazeera, the leading Arab news network based in Qatar, refers to it as an "apartheid wall". The "Nuremburg atmosphere" you cite, to me, is nonexistent; sure, the Jewish State is being heavily criticized now by many Arabs and Muslims for its state-sanctioned murders of so-called "spiritual leader" Yassin and terrorist Rantisi, both of which the international community condemned. Referring to the latter assassination, the US made an official statement where it warned Israel to consider "the consequences" of its actions. (Nelson Mandela was once considered a terrorist, too, but that's irrelevant.) And I do not believe for a second that all of this is the beginning of another wave of pogroms, or at the very extreme, another Holocaust. Ultimately, I believe in humanity. I believe that the majority of Arabs and Muslims who criticize Israel do not hate the Jewish people themselves. After all, there is a sharp distinction between the state and the citizenry; with Israel, I believe, it is no different, and nor it should be. But missiles launched from helicopters to assassinate whomever the state deems necessary (in itself a dangerous precedent), a "fence" that will (among other aims) excise Palestinian land and further anger the Palestinian people and illegal settlements, all for the purpose of suiting a self-destructive policy enshrined by an administration led by right-wing radicals, will not acheive this worthy goal. As a fellow Jew, of course I believe the state of Israel has the right to exist. It must. But so does the Palestinians' right to self-determination: the right to their own state that, God willing, can co-exist with Israel and end the violence.

Wow, where to start. First off, the situation in Iraq seems to be rapidly spiraling out of control. The insurgency is escalating, the US military is being forced into a self-destructive offensive that will no doubt lead toward terrible Iraqi civilian deaths, and the country is becoming submerged into a civil war that will leave the country in ruin. Secondly, a new flag for the country was introduced to the Iraqis by the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). However, the Iraqis didn't like it, to say the least, mostly because of the removal of the Islamic incantation "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great"), and that the design of the flag very much resembled Israel's. So, in the midst of the criticism, the IGC redesigned it by making the blue slightly a darker shade; the "Allahu Akbar" is still gone, and so it still may not be accepted by the Iraqi people. Personally, I believe that there are parallels, some of them quite significant, between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War. According to an article from the South Bend Tribune, some Vietnamese, in remembrance of the disastrous intervention in Indochina a generation ago, are calling for the US to get "out of Iraq before it's too late." Although we are told that Iraqi sovereignty will be "handed over" to the Iraqi people on June 30, we learn from an article by the BBC that the transitional government "will not have sovereign powers" until elections in January 2005. And, according to an al Jazeera poll, 87% of the over 20,000 polled believe that Iraq will remain occupied by the US after the June 30 deadline. And then, there is talk of renewing the draft, due to the fact that our troops are spread dangerously thin and that the administration had badly underestimated the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq in the first place. Well, it looks like that things are not going very well in the world, but I remain optimistic for humanity.

Lately some people have been puttin' down the Onion (see below), which I believe to be one of the greatest "news" publications of all time. I, of course, quote the word because it's not really, you know, factual. But it's not supposed to be. It's a great satirical paper, and an extremely funny website, now updated on Wednesdays instead of Tuesdays. Here are some of the negative reviews of the site from Alexa, an emporium for websites that features traffic and reviews:

* A Bitter Onion, April 20, 2004
Reviewer: A customer from Santa Barbara
The Onion was once funny -- now it's just shlocky!! What once was satire is now 10th-grade high school humor (and what's funny about that)? I've heard the owners sold out to a big corporation. God, I feel sorry for the shareholders of that place. Fire the CEO right now! Goodbye and farewell, Onion, you had your hayday -- now you're just a relic of the dot-com bomb internet.

Here's another one:

* Nowhere near the quality of the Onion of yore., April 17, 2004
Reviewer: A reviewer from New York, New York
Back in the day, the Onion was required reading for all those who loved to laugh. Nowadays, it's a pale shadow of itself. Don't believe me? Go to a bookstore and check out the older Onion articles versus the new stuff on the website. No comparison. Major props for them keeping it up all these years, but they're getting weak and losing their game. Is Gary Kroeger writing for them?

I don't get what this guy's problem was ...

* What the hell happened?, July 1, 2003
Reviewer: A customer
I used to love the onion. I used to look forward to each weeks issue, and i used to laugh out loud reading articles. But somewhere along the line it went wrong, and now it just reads like just another anti-America Michael Moore wannabe diatribe. What a shame.

[My question is, Since when is legitimate criticism of the government anti-American?]

And another:

** USED to be funny., April 8, 2003
Reviewer: A customer
This site used to be the best, but what happened??? The Onion has gone from being a hilarious satire to just another mouthpiece of the Left-Wing pinhead crowd. (yawn.)


Fuck 'em. I still love the Onion.

SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY FROM FRADULENT ELECTRONIC VOTING: BOYCOTT DIEBOLD!

The perennially hilarious Onion has a new "premium" service out that, for either $7 per month or $30 per year (this, by the way, is relatively cheaper), will provide readers with full archives (the Onion's archives, therefore, are no longer free), no ads, and a bunch of extras. I love the Onion, but I'm not really willing (or, as a matter of fact, able) to actually pay them for their great paper. Sorry guys, but no-can-do. At least until I get a job. Well, the regular website is free, and, if you live in New York City, so is the print edition; elsewhere the Onion in print is something like $50 annually. I know, kind of crazy, but these Wisconsin college kids gotta make a living somehow, right? It would be funny to see the Onion become acquired by a media conglomerate in twenty years and lose its soul, wouldn't it? No, it wouldn't. Scratch that. That would really suck.

A message to the Sharon administration: DON'T ASSASSINATE ARAFAT. It will be a mistake that will have negative consequences that will be unparalleled in their intensity, and will unleash global condemnation and outrage from the Muslim world. And, most importantly, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Sure, Arafat is an arch-terrorist; but so is Sharon, who is just as much a hard-liner asshole and very dangerous man. Do the Palestinians, therefore, have the same right to assassinate Sharon? Of course they don't. And neither should the Israelis. It's a very volatile situation as it is. Ariel, for the good of your nation, don't make it worse.

I find it very disheartening that none of the mainstream media had FOIAed the government for the pictures of the coffins. The media are not doing their job. I highly commend the Memory Hole for keeping democracy alive in these dark times.

Relating to the coffins, it is absolutely despicable that the military had attempted to ban the media from releasing the pictures. The families of the dead deserve to see the pictures, and it does a great disservice to them by barring the public from seeing the real, human cost of war.

The military doesn't want you to see the pictures of the coffins of our dead soldiers returning from Iraq. However, in respect to their families who deserve to see the pictures, the Memory Hole FOIAed the government for them. And here they are.

After having seen the 2nd volume of Kill Bill, I can with no hesitation that Quentin Tarantino is a master of the art. The film displays a virtuoso command of cinematography, direction, pacing, dialogue, pretty much everything. This masterpiece shall cement for all of history Quentin Tarantino to be one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema.

The long-awaited (six friggin' months) Volume Two of Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece, "Kill Bill," comes to theatres today. (I can't fuckin' wait to see it. If any out there have been reading my blog with some regularity, you might know by now that I think the first was absolutely brilliant.)

The cost of the war in Iraq is nearing $110 billion. Goddamn. 110,000,000,000 dollars. That money could have done a whole lot of good ...

Kerry, in a speech to Georgetown University, proposed to cut social programs in order to reduce the massive deficit. As I have said before, a fraction of the money being spent now on the military (nearly half a trillion dollars) would cover a lot, with plently to spare. Of course, if Kerry did actually cut that miniscule piece of the military's budget in exchange for badly needed social funding (assuming he wins the Presidency), he would be accused by the Right as gutting the military and not wanting to fight terrorism. However, fighting terrorism is not our responsibility alone. In order to make the world safe, we must pool the resources of many nations, each sharing an equal burden. Instead, Bush has done the opposite ... with devastating results, as the escalating quagmire in Iraq shows. Admittedly, Kerry would not be my prime candidate for the Presidency. I would much rather have Clark be the President, or at least the Vice President (which is still a possibility). He looked more principled. As the saying goes, nevertheless, Kerry is clearly the lesser of two evils.

What the hell, I'm keeping this great "Google bomb" alive by saying, "In 2004 we're gonna kick out that miserable failure. Kerry in '04!"

The "original" Star Wars trilogy will finally be sold in DVD format on September 21 of this year. I put the word original in quotes because they won't be the original films. In fact, they won't even be the DVD version of the 1997 "Special Edition" version of the trilogy, which many people have objected to. According to Amazon customer reviews of the upcoming DVD box-set, the DVDs will be updated even further from the 1997 version, in which all of the imperfections that made the original version of the films (which are very hard to obtain these days) a classic will be done away with. In 2007, it is said, yet another DVD release (assuming DVD is still a valid format then), said to be called the "Ultimate" or "Archive" edition (for the 30th anniversary), which will have all six films and the originals will be manipulated to the point where they all seamlessly flow together as a continuous narrative. However, I fear that the essence of the "originals" will be hopelessly lost by all of this pointless tweaking. That episode of South Park was ahead of the curve.

The great folks at Google, Inc. are crafting up a free, web-based email service that will be in direct competition with Hotmail (only Google Email, or Gmail, will have 1000 MB of free storage). It looks like it's gonna be great.

UPDATE: After having been using a Gmail account for some time now, I can safely attest that Google is the best ... sort of. The only real problem I have is that messages deleted in the "sent mail" folder will delete the same messages in the "all mail," which is supposed to function as the "archive". Also, I've read in Gmail Help that, whereas other web-based email services terminate your account after 30 days of inactivity, Gmail won't delete your account until nine months of inactivity, which is really cool.

This is weird. I can't access any of my archived posts from my blog, yet I can from where I post stuff. That's just fucked up.

You know, in retrospect, I should have republished the post on our "rationale" for the Iraq war on the actual anniversary of the beginning of the war, not February 7th. Stupid, stupid. So, in case you missed it, here it is again, ten days late (God I'm stupid):

Subject: WHY THIS INVASION MAKES SENSE
From: Progress
Date: Mar 20 2003 5:37PM

Peacenik: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

Warmonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George B-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense:

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up.

*****

Ah, memories.

Pesah (known by the goyem as "Passover") is comin' up, and we have a traditional pilgrimage to Greenwich, Connecticut. (Did I spell that right? Yeah, I think so.)

Richard Clarke's fiery book Against All Enemies, which exposes for the Bush administration as the bastards that they are, has evidently polarized public opinion. Looking at the customer reviews for the book on Amazon, with few exceptions, the reviewers either give it one star or five.

Kanye West's new CD, The College Dropout, is great. My favorite tracks include "We Don't Care," "Jesus Walks," "Get Em High," "Breathe In Breathe Out," and "Two Words." All in all, solid.

The US shot down a UN Resolution that condemns the Israeli assassination of Sheik Yassin, the "spiritual leader" of Hamas. The assassination, aside from the unfortunate matter of the "unintentional" civilian deaths involved in the attack (they fired fuckin' missiles at him from a helicopter), is justifiable, because Hamas is a leading terrorist organization, responsible for about 400 Israeli deaths since its inception. The assassination was condemned globally and has sparked a fervor of outrage and hatred in the Muslim world. A leading Shi'a cleric in Iraq declared Israel's assassination (is it OK to call it murder, or would that be considered anti-Semitic?) as a "'dirty crime against Islam,'" and the atrocities of September 11 "'a miracle from God.'" We should be very wary of a very likely Shiite theocracy/dictatorship that is beginning to develop in Iraq in the midst of a civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. Our founding fathers wanted religion and political power separate for a reason. Religion, especially radical, fundamentalist religious dogma, generally tends to lead toward corruption and oppression, as the historical record shows, again and again. Exactly like Iran, we are dealing with another Islamic revolution followed by the overthrow of another corrupt, secular dictatorship. Also like Iran, we supported the corrupt, secular dictatorship in Iraq. Bush is right when he said that Islam and democracy are not incompatible; however, it should be obvious by now that Islam and American democracy in the minds of many Muslims worldwide are. If you doubt the extent of the hatred and fear exhibited toward us by an apparent majority of Muslims, just check out the latest report by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Air America Radio, a left-wing radio network (that's a first; no, really, it is), is coming with a new program, "The O'Franken Factor" with Al Franken, set to air on Wednesday, March 31st, at noon, which will be in direct competition with that stupid blowhard Rush Limbaugh in order to battle the conservative strangehold on talk radio. God bless Al Franken, and may God continue to bless America.

Tom Cole is under fire for his comments on Sen. John Kerry, in which he said that "'if George Bush loses the election, Usama bin Laden wins the election. It's that simple. It will be interpreted that way by enemies of the United States around the world.'" He added, "'What do you think Hitler would have thought if Roosevelt would've lost the election in 1944? He would not have thought American resolve was strengthening. What would the Confederacy have thought if Lincoln would have lost the election of 186[4]?'" Fuck that bitch.

I discern some bias in the Washington Post, a leading "liberal" paper; and no, it isn't "liberal bias," either. It actually might be more accurately interpreted as "conservative bias," dealing another blow to the "liberal media" myth. Yesterday, the 20th, there were massive global protests against the US war and occupation in Iraq, predominately in areas outside the United States. Any mention? No. However, there is mention of the protests in New York City, which was not deemed important enough for the front page; it's on page 9. On page 2, we hear about "minibottle" liquor in a South Carolina bar, which takes precedence over the global reaction to our ongoing occupation. In addition to that, a story about some US soldiers who were charged with assaulting and abusing Iraqi POWs is relegated to page 21. Finally, the layout of at least the front page of the New York Times, another so-called "liberal" newspaper, is roughly the same. The most important article of its front page is also the story of the election in Taiwan. Just like the Post, there is no mention of the global protests on the front page. In fact, the front page of the Boston Globe has a big picture of the Manhattan protests; the story is on page ten of the paper. On behalf of the American mainstream press, this is a disgrace.

UPDATE:

To my knowledge, these are the only news sources that have covered the global "M20" protests: the British Broadcasting Corp., the Independent, and the IMC (Independent Media Center). The Washington Post did not, at least not in its "A" section, where all of the important global events are reported; when we are acknowledging that the Post is widely considered to be one of the best papers in the world, this is truly a terrible revelation, indeed.

Global demonstrations (two million in London, 100,000 in New York, etc.) in protest of the US occupation in Iraq and an evenly divided electorate must really reassure Bush of his indisputable victory in November. Just kiddin'; Bush is out.

I am really psyched for Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Volume Two," coming out on April 16th. (It was supposed to come out in February, dammit!) Anyway, if you remember my review of the first volume (which I am still pissed off about; I would sit through a six-hour Quentin Tarantino film), you should know by now that I think this is a really great, brilliant film. It's going to be great.

Today marks the 1st anniversary of the war in Iraq. As of now, it is costing this country over $106 billion dollars, which is approximately $380 dollars per each person, man, woman, and child, in the entire nation, and $1500 per household, according to this source, which is what the running counter above is from. See it go? Ever higher and higher? That's our future, slipping away at a rate of about $1,700 every second.

If anybody remembers, March 19th will mark the anniversary of the 1st day of the Iraq war. Or, as I like to call it, "Piss Off the World Day."

A tenth planet has been discovered! Temporarily termed "Sedna," after an Eskimo goddess, it is three times farther away from the Sun than Pluto, which was discovered in 1930, and is about 1000 miles across in size. Very exciting stuff.

I still cannot get over how the Spaniards protested their government after the terrorist attacks in Madrid, claiming that because Spain "allied" with the US in the Iraq war, Spain became a target for al Qaeda. In the US, we did the opposite, yet, applying the principal of universality, one would (naively) assume that because of the wars we supported in the Middle East, the Americans would (therefore) protest the Bush administration for allowing al Qaeda to make the US a target for its retaliation. Oh, yeah, I already said this; I know, but it is still bugging me. It just shows how different those Europeans are from us, doesn't it?

Remember when I said that the ETA was definitely responsible for the terror attacks in Spain? Well, now I am not so sure of that. In fact, many in Spain are actually protesting the Aznar administration for allying with the US in Op Iraqi Liberation, claiming that that gave al Qaeda incentive to kill innocents. Do you think any Americans would have protested the Bush administration after 9/11 because the policies of the Reagan and Bush I administrations that pissed off a lot of Muslims gave them a reason to retaliate? Of course not. We rallied behind Bush like nothin'. Four more years!

The 17-year cicadas are coming back from their long hibernation. Woo hoo!