A Winner's "Loser"

An old Huffington Post story about Jimmy Carter came to mind the other day as I was longingly watching One Bright Shining Moment, the brilliant George McGovern documentary on the man, the era, and the various "idealistic" possibilities his candidacy represented. McGovern, who, I'll come clean, is a hero of mine, and deserves some serious attention, even studied emulation by today's political breed (Especially considering the current clusterf%$k of an administration and the New DNC-dominated Democratic Party in apparent ascendancy at the moment). So Carter's story must wait.



McGovern, the iconic standard-bearer, who in his defeat represents a death of sorts, inchoate with potential for that long-held long-term GOP ideological imperative: dismantling, and ultimately, reversing a commitment to New Deal liberal Democratic values, policy, and governance. The landslide loss to "Tricky" Dick Nixon, an election in which the Johnson/Humphrey Democratic Wing (with union support no less!) bitterly opposed its own party's candidate, in retrospect appears to be a pivotal moment for protecting The Great Society from the impending ravages of its Vietnam War-induced financial problems, public relations war, and the soon to be neo-conservative barbarians at the gate. That Nixon had to make concessions to a public with clearly liberal sentiments in order to win, and then stay in power (Lip service to ending Iraq, OOOps...I mean...Vietnam, creation of the E.P.A, relations with China, wage-price supports, etc.) perhaps speaks to the kind of progressive support McGovern could have enjoyed had he reached office. And from there? Ahhh, the what ifs...



While imagining the tragedy and grief that would have been averted by a McGovern presidency (most importantly, the escalation into Cambodia and Laos), begin contrasting all the "losers"----those failed candidacies and marginalized office-holders who for whatever reason(s) are unable to carry out their noble agendas----and the "winners"----those who attain office, but by and large, don't do anything good until leaving the political horse race. Obviously, it's much easier once out of office to be "idealistic" like that "Loser" McGovern, a now frightening case study for our tepid and docile 21st Century Democrats. It seems to say, "Check your ideals and the truth at the door if you want to reign. Those McGovernian luxuries would inevitably lead to impeaching a deserving president, exercising congressional oversight and power, or cutting funding for the war in Vietnam, I mean...Iraq." His campaign today would be an anachronism when it should be the model.



It is during many of these unproductively maudlin reveries for times through which I never lived (a regular occurrence unfortunately) that this political phenomena becomes more and more cliche as it does true: Change is more than a slogan. It first begins outside of government and is only co-opted after much rabble-rousing and movement galvanization. In spite of this, Obama not really identifying with a movement is commonly seen as an advantage, as vaguely "rising above partisan politics"(Where's that outdated sober recognition of competing factions vying for influence?). But we all know that movements, as well as factions, do exist out there in McGovernLand---where ideals are a warring reality. And in terms of wisely selecting and embracing those disparate and diverse "agents of change," Obama leaves many uncertain and wary (Ironically, the mantle of reform, McCain's absurdly disingenuous mantra, might better suite Obama's intentions).



Ok, so like '72, we're back to trust: We have to trust him to end a war he's against in principle, but has consistently funded. And now we're back again to the rigours of becoming a "viable," meaning unMcGovern-like candidate again: "You can't become president if you don't fund the troops!" so say all. In contrast to the uncertainty and doubt, McGovern's campaign is a (kind of pathetic, though) cathartic piece of noble-minded nostalgia expressly because he would have seized on, and politically empowered the progressive elements of change had he won. A movement embodied in government at a critical moment in U.S. History! Just think: To be alive for that! True, Barack's one bright shining moment is now, but if Rubinomics and a renewed emphasis on military spending and redeployment is any indicator, an Obama win would look more like a victory for Bill Clinton than George McGovern. Hopefully Obama's overly moderate gestures are only lies (his handlers erroneously believe necessary) for allowing him the opportunity to execute a progressive agenda, an inverted "Tricky" if you will.



If that doesn't happen, or Obama loses the election, would he become like the many who evince the influential aegis of a reactionary, governmental complacency by eventually leaving office to do great things? Vice President Gore's fairly recent transformation easily comes to mind here, who, unlike McGovern, turned "Mr. Awesome" after office. Hell, Martin Van Buren helped found the Free Soil Party and became an advocating abolitionist after a term in office continuing the Jackson administration's infamous gag order on slavery. Even President Carter's stock has undergone a deserved revaluation since losing re-election and embarking on numerous humanitarian missions, not to mention making a courageous stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (what most likely barred him from actually attending the Democratic Convention this year).



So...back to the Huff Post Carter story, another small, if not trivial example of the freedom afforded to those recently departed from mainstream politics: He says here publicly that McBush is "milking" his POW past.* Look at the set of balls on him now!



*Incidentally, much like McCain's former colleague, William Henry Harrison, who also campaigned on his military accomplishments before taking office, and subsequently dying 30 days, 12 hours, and 30 minutes later. However, with fairness to our 9th President, even though his contribution to opening the Northwest Territory to white settlement in the "Battle of Fallen Timbers," quelling the Indian Resistance Movement that merged with The War of 1812, decisively winning the "Battle of Tippecanoe," and later invading and dominating British forces in Canada at the "Battle of the Thames" was hardly as "heroic" as being shot down and taken prisoner before losing planes on five separate occasions---like McVain---Harrison nonetheless deserves the phrase "military accomplishments" somewhere in his biography. Also of parallel interest is "Old Tippecanoe's" vanity in the face of his ever-worrisome mortality, a primary cause of his death: Refusing to wear a coat while giving the longest inaugural speech in American History-----in the freakin' rain! At 68, William Henry Harrison, predecessor of the great president John Tyler, was the oldest president elect until Reagan. If The Maverick can straight talk his way into the White House this November, he could take that honor. But let's hope McCain's history has no more parallels with the "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too" ticket.








"McGovern was on the wrong side of progress: the progressive side."----Stephan Colbert




Nixon on the '72 election and some of the fun that could've been avoided

This selection from the Richard Nixon Tapes where Kissinger congratulates Dick on his victory is pretty funny and illuminating:

Nixon: You know this, this fella’ [Democratic presidential candidate Senator George McGovern]to the last was a prick, did you—
Kissinger: Oh yes—
Nixon: —see his concession statement?
Kissinger: Oh! He started out—
Nixon: He was very gracious at the beginning—
Kissinger: —and then he went right back to saying that, uh—
Nixon: Yeah. And [speechwriter] Ray Price just sent me in a wire saying that "I look forward to working with you and your supporters for peace in the years ahead." And I just said, "hell, no, I’m not going to send him that sort of a wire."
Kissinger: Absolutely.
Nixon: Don’t you agree?
Kissinger: Absolutely.
Nixon: I mean, I, uh, just arguing with [Chief of Staff] Bob [Haldeman] here about it, but I said, "Ray just doesn’t have the right sense of this sort of thing."
Kissinger: No, [McGovern] was ungenerous—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: —he was petulant—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: —he was unworthy—
Nixon: Right.
Kissinger: —he was, he was—
Nixon: Because you probably know, I was responded in a, [laughs], in a very decent way to him.
Kissinger: Well, I thought you were a great statesman.



It's interesting that when McGovern wires the Dick camp saying that he looks forward to working with Tricky and his "supporters for peace," they call him "ungenerous," "petulant," and "unworthy." They must have assumed McGovern was sarcastic because they know their intentions would never be for peace. Also, we now know why his name is Kissinger. Look at the kissing he places on Dick's ass, even struggling to find another intelligent adjective at the end: "he was, he was"...what? Magnanimous in defeat?


The phone conversations are entertaining not just because you hear Dick curse every other second or getting vindictive or feeling triumphant over journalists and intellectuals (Philip Roth's Trick E. Dixon in Our Gang is right on), but because of the political chicanery involved(ratfucking). For example, a shrewd Kissinger tellingly remarks that Nixon made Vietnam "his issue":



Nixon: And you know something...all these left-wing columnists can do now is to piss on the [Republicans] not winning the Senate and the House and building the party, but they couldn’t care less about that. The main thing is, they know, we came up to bat against their candidate and beat the hell out of him.
Kissinger: And came up against their issue and turned it into an asset.
Nixon: That’s right. Don’t you think so? Don’t you feel that?
Kissinger: You made Vietnam your issue—



More great Nixon links on the tapes here, here, and "the abuses of power" section here.



And lastly, McGovern firing back against Dick Cheney's disparaging remarks (One Dick feeling he had to defend another) about his '72 campaign with this response:

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney's consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace. Who was the real loser of 72?

The Vice President spoke with contempt of my '72 campaign, but he might do well to recall that I began that effort with these words: "I make one pledge above all others — to seek and speak the truth." We made some costly tactical errors after winning the nomination, but I never broke my pledge to speak the truth. That is why I have never felt like a loser since 1972. In contrast, Cheney and Bush have repeatedly lied to the American people.

Vote Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too!

A Jeremiad Against Palin's "Unapologetic" American Exceptionalism

Andrew Bacevich has an interesting piece on the actual history of that founding moment of American exceptionalism and the ahistoric notions Gov. Palin declared as her "worldview"during the "debate" last week:

"...America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights."

The Puritan John Winthrop would be surprised to learn that that's what he meant when landing in Boston Harbor and sermonizing ceremoniously before taking shore. Like most people in 1630, the passangers on the Arabella weren't concerned with democracy, tolerance, freedom, and especially not equal rights:

"It had little to do with values such as tolerance and equal rights, in which Winthrop had little interest. It had everything to do with forging a covenant with God, who had summoned the Puritans to create a Christian commonwealth."

Although, in light of many fundamentalist right-wing Americans' worldviews, the inadvertant invocation of our Puritan forefathers is certainly intriguing. I guess ironically----Reagan, Palin, and the other keepers of wisdom and truth might by their actions implicitly agree with Winthrop more than they actually know. How shocking.


To be fair----many politicians (though mainly conservatives) quite often and ignorantly invoke the idea of America as a "city upon a hill" in order to revitalize Reagan's vacuously moralistic vision for its indubitable political effects. But are there any costs for politicians like Palin et al. neglecting the true meaning, worldview, and vision of American exceptionalism as it was laid out by its Puritan father John Winthrop? The short answer, if we don't believe god exists (or, I'll add, is just indifferent), from an expert like Bacevich:

the concept of American Exceptionalism first articulated by Winthrop, employed with great political effect by Ronald Reagan, and now endorsed by Sarah Palin, is simply nonsense - a fairy tale that may once have had a certain utility, but that in our own day has become simply pernicious. To persist in this nonsense is to make it impossible either to see ourselves as we really are or to see the world as it actually is.

Yes indeed. But unlike Palin's notion of an "unapologetic" "beacon of hope," the Puritan theological understanding of a covenant with god meant at least that "to violate the terms" "was to invite catastrophe." Yes, for them there were dire consequences for their actions; and unlike modern America, they were allowed to say so. Should we not expect the same if we act out of hand? Is 17th Century science too far beyond, or behind us? For every action is there not an equal and opposite reaction? Not if you listen to the media that pounced on Reverend Wright's theological equivalent of divine blowback. Who, us? The man upstairs couldn't possibly damn us. To think so would be foolish. But hey, isn't that an important component of our historic notion of American exceptionalism: blind faith in our country's originality, righteousness, and sense of mission?



According to Palin's and others' useful myth of a myth, we should be "unapologetic" about our brand: the current misunderstood exceptionalism that dogmatically shouts, "Don't ever apologize for failing to live up to your own ideals!" Penitence for not properly respecting our very own laws is also not necessary; and even though this failure, the breaking of our secular compact, is not likely subject to divine punishment, it does have serious (and now world-wide) repercussions. One among the many of these forgettable little "imperfections,"* as she might think of them, with their parallel consequences----belligerently invading, destroying, and occupying a country with (as Winthrop noted about their own exceptional moment) the "eyes of all people...upon us"---- might, not surprisingly, create more enemies. And though we may claim those enemies threaten our freedom and even our survival, it is only because of how we decide to react that that even becomes rationally arguable.

Revoking an adherence to constitutionalism and our own collective sense of decency weakens us not just in a civic and pragmatic way, but also psychologically and morally. We can now allow others to torture for us, and compartamentalize the injustice of the state as something in which we are entirely innocent. Yet, in the face of a wrathful, vengeful god----not the mere godless "Evil Empire," or the popularly-labeled existential threat of islamic terrorism----our original "exceptionalists" would accept utter damnation by working even harder to become a better people, and by extension, commonwealth. Maybe a recognition of our own damnation is what we need?


And yet Puritans still humbly hoped to avoid the disasters of their day, trying not to incur god's wrath by "lov[ing] one another with a pure heart," "bear[ing] one another's burdens," "abridg[ing] ourselves of our superfluities" for "others' necessities," "mak[ing] others' conditions our own," "rejoic[ing] together, mourn[ing] together, labor[ing] and suffer[ing] together." (A fascinating paradox, to be sure, since there was no way to alter god's predetermined plan or the recipients of his grace). As a nation-state, our compact today is only profanely to ourselves, and to our own self-destructive delusions (Need we say imperial?). Not least of which is a certainty in our own righteousness, and a total disregard for even feigned humility. These delusions of our nation-state are the unflinching misunderstanding of a leadership that misunderstands what exceptionalism really means----and a population that would let them.


Still, the Puritans did believe they were exceptional because they were "the people of the New World" that "God had summoned..to serve as a model for all humankind." It was an unparalleled chance to found a commonwealth that would make the habitual practice of their noble commitments the laws of spiritual and physical preservation as much as a revolutionary inspiration to others. However, like our leaders today, their ideals could be hollowed out to do the rhetorical bidding of demogoguery, corruption, and power. Violence, authoritarianism, and hypocrisy resulted. But their compact with god, and the responsibility to the prospects of the New World still separated them from the others, making it worth the moral vigilance, making them----exceptional.



These parallels we are not immune from sharing. Apology? Maybe not, but a sober recognition and effectual redirection, yes. Being "unapologetic" denies that contrition is necessary for setting out on righteous errands.


Moreover, their exceptionalism wasn't inherent. It's demands had to be met continually, its principles upheld, else they revert and become like the unsaintly others (those outside of New England. Remember Cotton Mather pathetically lamenting that sad fact?).



By contrast, our historical manglers' exceptionalism is genetic, an inheritance that needs no proof, something presupposed. Much like Frost's grandolinquent pronouncement that the "land was ours before we were the land's," or John O'Sullivan's "manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence,"----the verdict on our committment to Palin's curious definition of "exceptionalism,""democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights," is in: We're committed, perfection reached, no work required----next case please. America's prosperity and power is proof that its one of the "elect" in this world, self-assured by its own perceived immortality. Even a simple and devout Puritan would feel threatened by the vulgarity of those who would presume, think, or believe they are inherently saved.



If a correct understanding of American exceptionalism teaches us anything, it is that whatever may be exceptional about our nation-state, it should be constantly reassessed, criticized, and measured by how well we live up to our own secular, civic mission, lest----as Winthrop says----"we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world."


If not the impetus for global hegemony that major powers must struggle to restrain, or the motives of sheer imperial vanity (a phrase coined by Gore Vidal to describe the Vietnam War), the idea that we are a select group on a "mission" "anointed" by god should give people some pause. That vestige of the true history of exceptionalism still remains in many of our leaders and their constituents despite their own ignorance of it (Just think: The certitude that it was our manifest destiny to spread across and "civilize" the continent----by removing and practicing genocide on others----is no less absurd than believing we can annihilate a violent political tactic----terrorism----through war).

Palin apparently is one of those people today who actually believes that god has a stake in our international and domestic endeavours instead of the more sober Puritan notion that we must set the most impossible of tasks for ourselves----trying to prove that we are worthy of god's grace. (On the Palin god speeches, I'll reluctantly admit that there is still some semantic wiggle-room in her statements because she did say "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from god," and then retracks by clarifying that "that's what we have to [revealingly, she almost says "believe" here] make sure we're praying for, that there is a plan, and that that plan is god's plan." There is a kind of (in)genius fundamentalist subtext or subtle implication here. Which does her audience hear and actually understand? 1)Pray that our leaders sending our troops to Iraq is in some way god's plan. Easy enough: leaders--->invasion of Iraq--->sending more troops--->hopefully god's plan; or 2) That sending our troops to Iraq is "a task from god," or "god's plan": god's task--->leaders--->invasion of Iraq---> sending more troops--->god's plan. Hooray! Of the two, #1 is a horrible foreign policy aim, but #2 is sacrilegious jingoism).


Anyways, Bacevich's three possibilities regarding exceptionalism as a worldview: that god doesn't exist so it's all pernicious nonsense; "he" exists but Americans are not "his new Chosen People"; or that "he" exists and America has been chosen to be "his New Israel," in which case Winthrop's warning "demands urgent attention." It also begs a dire question and requires a serious answer from the Governor and other "believers committed to the concept of American exceptionalism": "have we kept the Lord's covenant? If not, perhaps the time has come to mend our ways before it's too late."


*Update: A day later, Sarah Palin did indeed use the word "imperfect" in describing how Barack Obama sees America: "Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."

Military-Industrial Spending v. Media and Congressional Myopia

With the direct costs of the Iraq War set to run over $800 billion in 2009----$3.5 billion a week/ $180 billion a year----Tomdispatch and Chalmers Johnson remind us that while singularly focusing on a $700 billion Wall Street bailout, the derelict mainstream media, with silent knee-jerk complicity, have allowed an absurdly enormous and wasteful military budget to pass through Congress with nary a word (Really? For 2009, a $612 billion defense authorization bill plus guaranteed additional discretionary appropriations and no serious mention?). THAT'S A WHOPPING $100 BILLION DIFFERENCE from the bailout! And yet, there's no outrage over the indirect (or true) costs of our voluntary, 21st Century "splendid little war" either, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $1-2 trillion. More inclusive estimates accounting for the many costly externalities associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq measure it closer to $4-$5 trillion (Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes). To put these gargantuan numbers in context:

Stiglitz and Bilmes list what even one of these trillions could have paid for: 8 million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or health care for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students. Three trillion could have fixed America's social security problem for half a century.

So doing the math: Divide one Iraq War of $1-5 trillion by Wall Street bailouts at $700 billion a pop, and, "we're talking somewhere between one-and-a-half and seven bailouts-worth of taxpayer dollars flowing into the morass of disaster, corruption, and carnage in Iraq."*

Moreover, one of the worst parts about the incomprehensibly bloated defense budget according to Winslow Wheeler, a Republican, who for 31 years was a member of the Senate and the General Accounting Office on military expenditures:

America's defense budget is now larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than at any point since the end of World War II, and yet our Army has fewer combat brigades than at any point in that period; our Navy has fewer combat ships; and the Air Force has fewer combat aircraft. Our major equipment inventories for these major forces are older on average than any point since 1946 ---or in some cases, in our entire history.

Interestingly, notwithstanding these quantity/quality issues and the absence of an existential threat of Soviet Cold War Era magnitude, the U.S. Government (no surprise there) and mainstream media apparently feel these expenditures justified without serious mention: Even in the midst, as we are told, of an imminent, catastrophic financial disaster!

But here we can see these two related events loosely linked as The Daily Show brilliantly draws a parallel between the dire language used to sell the Iraq Invasion and the currently proposed corporate-statist (or is it a "corporate-socialist"?) bailout:



In spite of all this gloomy foreboding, and inspirited by that exceptionally-American Divine Light of Freedom, Nature's god-given, democratically dubious and ineffectual right to defer to----"The Experts!"----I now faithfully invoke those who just some 5-6 years ago, had it in mind to save our collective asses from something big. No really----big like the specter of Iraq! If the past be any indication of the future, then their ironically sanguine divinations in contrast with today's apocalyptic economic forecasts may give us a sense of the collective pool of wisdom in which today's heroic catastrophists may be diving (Or it might just simply provide us with a chuckle). Here are just a few examples from The Institute of Expertology's second compendium, Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won The War In Iraq, a resource that everyone should have by their bedside (or toilet at least):

• I believe...that the Iraqi people will, in fact, greet us as liberators.---Senator John McCain, NBC News Today, March 20, 2003
  

• This conflict is going to be…relatively short.---Senator McCain, interview on Meet the Press, March 23, 2003
  

• The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small...Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.---Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, September 16, 2002
  

• It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars.---Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, September 2002
  

• This is $1.7 billion...in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution...We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.---Andrew Natsios, appointed by the Bush Administration to run USAID, on Ted Koppel's Nightline, April 23, 2003

• The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.---Mitch Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, April 21, 2003
  

To be undoubtedly continued...

*With regard to the corruption mentioned above, here's one component of it:

• $19.3bn---The amount Halliburton has received in single-source contracts for work in Iraq.
  
  

...And also these other disconcerting facts:

• $138---The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war.
  


• $25bn---The annual cost to the US of the rising price of oil, itself a consequence of the war.
  


• $3 trillion---A conservative estimate of the true cost - to America alone - of Bush's Iraq adventure. The rest of the world, including Britain, will shoulder about the same amount again.
  


• $5bn---Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq.
  


• $1 trillion---The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war.
  


• 3%---The average drop in income of 13 African countries - a direct result of the rise in oil prices. This drop has more than offset the recent increase in foreign aid to Africa.
  
  

(All statistics quoted from Ada Edemariam, "The True Cost of War," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan)

The Hand of the People, Enemies of the State

"The legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802

"We expect every American to support our military, and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans, and indeed our allies, who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me." Bill O'Reilly, February 26, 2003

"The hand of the people... has proved that government to be the strongest of which every man feels himself a part." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Tiffin, 1807.

After closely following the protest scene outside of the Democratic Convention, where police in riot gear even threatened with tear gas a peaceful demonstration by Iraq Veterans Against the War, one might reluctantly apprehend that, for all intents and purposes, the First Amendment is either functionally suspended, in limbo, at rest, or just plain dead. Yet, the Democratic Convention was strikingly subdued in comparison to St. Paul last week.

The response at the Republican Convention exemplified an antithesis to any meaningful public exercise of 66% of the personal protections guaranteed under the First Amendment (Those not pertaining to religion). Police employed an indiscriminate use of force and crowd control that utilized riot control tactics and weapons in non-riot situations. Pepper spray, smoke bombs, impact rounds, and tear gas grenades were used not just against those practicing civil disobedience, but against innocent bystanders, and journalists as well. In fact, out of 800 arrests there were 18 felony riot charges, and 19 journalists rounded up for simply documenting the horrific scene. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was arrested for asking why two of her producers were jailed, one of whom filmed her own assault.

In addition, so called "preventative" measures were taken to raid homes and the "convergence spaces" of organizers and video documentarians. At least one of these raids by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office took place in Minneapolis, which is outside of their jurisdiction. One, according to Jeff Guntzel of the Minnesota Independent on Glen Greenwald's webcast, took place over the weekend without the Chief of Police in the operation even reading the search warrant. Guntzel also witnessed at the home of organizers working with Food Not Bombs (video here) the intrusion of police wielding fully automatic weapons, and "escorting" a 5 year-old boy out of the house. He also documented other first-hand accounts and provided photographs.

What was the probable cause? What evidence did they find against them? Will anyone be charged with anything that sticks (A lot of people have been charged with the Orwellian "conspiracy to cause riot")? If the answers are truly "nothing" and "no"----no matter: Their tactics and strategies undergird a much broader goal, one that clearly suggests democratic suppression and intimidation, which will be a focus in future blogs.

Lest one still think police only swooped in on potential troublemakers and pesky anarchists, note that the I-Witness Video Collective, which was formed to document potential police abuse at these types of events, was pre-emptively raided after first being surrounded by heavily armed police threatening detention for any attempting to leave their working space. They bizarrely claimed there was a hostage situation inside, though if that were the case, they wouldn't need a warrant to enter (At the time, the police were awaiting a warrant; and then got one for the wrong address). The group, which has allied with the New York City Chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild in the past, was likely targeted in coordination with federal authorities because of their role in the '04 New York Convention ("California's Anti-Terrorism Information Center admitted to spying on anti-war groups in 2003. And Denver's police department built their own secret spy files on Quakers and 200 other organizations"---Wired Blog Network) And they weren't the only group of videographers targeted. The Glass Bead Collective was suspiciously arrested in what seems to be an intelligence operation that seized political literature, lists of members, and future documentary plans (video here).

Are These Just Random Abuses?

Since the passage of the PATRIOT ACT and the recommendation of 9/11 Commission for greater cooperation and intelligence sharing between agencies both local and federal, "Fusion Centers" have been set up and improperly used for domestic spying (begin here, here, and here). And since I-Witness footage was pivotal in some 400 cases that resulted in dropped charges or acquittals against demonstrators four years ago, it appears, quite suspiciously, that they were targeted in a politically motivated episode of "intelligence sharing" that resulted in a raid. As Eileen Clancy on Democracy Now explains the police conduct in '04:

the police had lied so thoroughly and so often that if you were able to take the police statements, the police affidavits of the charges, and put them up against the video, that many times...the cases completely fell apart.

Ok: So since the '04 RNC debacle, they've learned to obstruct citizens' ability to monitor police activities in public so that "policing" with impunity could become easier. Obviously, they don't quite appreciate the art of open surveillance when practiced by public advocacy groups. Maybe they wish to be behind the camera?

Interestingly, according to Democracy Now , local police forces are increasingly conducting surveillance of their own:

Last Thursday, The New York Times published an article revealing that it had obtained videotapes showing the New York Police Department conducting surveillance by planting undercover officers to secretly infiltrate and monitor anti-war protests, bike rallies, and even a vigil for a dead cyclist. The footage the Times obtained showed officers holding protest signs, carrying flowers with mourners, riding their bicycles—and videotaping people at events.

Not surprisingly, other departments have been caught crossing jurisdictions, like the Philadelphia Police who were conducting surveillance at a New York May Day rally:

Philadelphia Police conducted a cloak-and-dagger surveillance of demonstrators at a May Day rally in New York, possibly violating a 1985 consent decree designed to protect people’s privacy. At the May 1st rally, undercover Philadelphia police snapped photographs of about twenty demonstrators dressed in black and covering their mouths with bandanas, the same outfits protesters wore in the rally at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. According to the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, John Timoney, who comes from the New York Police Department, it was part of Philadelphia police strategy to identify troublemakers who have said they plan to attend the Republican National Convention.

"Fusion Centers" linking federally gathered domestic intelligence to local police forces, and local police forces surveilling citizens outside of their jurisdiction? Should we doubt that police were/are executing a political agenda, at least in some respect? Maybe it would be wise to heed the warning of the Church Committee's 1976 report on the FBI's COINTELPRO spying program:

Unless new and tighter controls are established by legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its nature.

That may be good for Bill O'Reilly, but it's bad for "the legitimate powers of government" and the "hand of the people."

Syllogism of the Day:

by: Mike Van Winkle California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC)

You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest). You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.

Rules of the game to keep in mind: Premise A should provide the predicate in the conclusion; B the subject; and those damn middles being too integral to understanding should stay excluded.

Premise A. Where a protest group protests The War on Terror might be where an act of terrorism occurs.*

Premise B. A protest group protesting TWOT is [almost] a terrorist act.**

THEREFORE

The Conclusion: A protest group protesting TWOT might be where [an act of] terrorism occurs?

OR: [One can almost argue that] A protest group protesting TWOT might be where [an act of] terrorism occurs?

OR the "easy," lazily deductive: One can almost argue that a protest against TWOT is a terrorist act?**

Thinking Out Loud
I really wish I could understand; this "logic" is the pits. Is it for Mr. Van Winkle that an event where a terrorist act might possibly occur is conflated into a peoples' participation in an actual terrorist activity simply because these people are philosophically against the s0-called "War on Terrorism's" methods and techniques for fighting both actual and perceived terrorism, if not the phraseology itself? "If you're against what we call the War on Terrorism, and actively express it in any way, then you must be a terrorist." Deductively dangerous thinking, and a war on the interpretation of words.

*Henceforth, it'll take the acronym, TWOT

**Surely, he'd argue it was a terrorist act if he truly thought it was one, right? So why does he qualify with "almost"? What kind of scruples hold him back. Perhaps it's that vestige, the last remaining bulwark of society's most civil laws and decency still obstinately rooted in his latent understanding? Could it not also be an intelligence that secretly knows he might appear slightly less blatantly ridiculous to some people! As there are degrees of "almost" arguing, and also what makes a terrorist act, so can he be less blatant and ridiculous.

A True Maverick: No Prenuptial

I knew that McCain dumped his disfigured first wife for a much younger wealthy one, who would then go on to finance and promote his campaigns; and I knew that she is reportedly worth $100 million (Not that they're elitist: they both are excellent bowlers and despise arugula); I also knew that when he had to declare assets, hers were not included. What didn't dawn on me is why: They have a prenuptial. McCain would be the first president to ever have one. Hooray!!!!!

There's good and bad to this for him politically. For instance, from CBS News:

As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career - even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

It was loans from Cindy McCain bank accounts that helped him survive a 1982 House race, his first election. Anheuser-Busch also helped in the process:

Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain's campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.

We don't know what he gets from his wife financially because she is not on the return, but by not having joint accounts, we do know that McCain can't spend her money on the campaign trail. Just think: If they didn't have a prenup, he could spend up to half of their assets!

Anyways, what a Maverick by having a prenup! And please remember, he did, after all, get his act together after a tough stint in Vietnam, picking himself up by his own bootstraps to dump his first wife, and then proceeding to marry his well-connected, immeasurably (Really, They won't let us see how much she's worth) wealthy mistress! This guy is a true Maverick.

McDocumentary Part Deux

And here we have the second installment of the partisan award-winning documentary, Presidential Character and Conduct '08 (By the way, McCain was a soldier).

Update: For some reason the video isn't available for embed anymore. Go here:
http://www.236.com/video/2008/fox_news_mccain_documentary_in_1_8402.php

The Bush Administration Doesn't Believe McCain Was Tortured?

Many of the "enhanced interrogation" methods used on McCain in Vietnam---sleep deprivation, stress positions, standing for long periods, beating, and the witholding of medical treatment---apparently don't fit the Cheney/Bush/Addington/Woo legal definition of torture.

Conservative columnist, Andrew Sullivan, points out, here, the irony (hypocrisy?) that when McCain supported the Military Commisions Act, the "tortured" senator became an "enabler."

In spite of the media narrative of the anti-torture McCain, how might his recent acquiescence alter the story of a courageous war hero?

Tortured Logic: Thoughts on How McCain Could Admit to Being Tortured

If The McCain of Today (who's honest and running for President), as opposed to The McCain of the Past (who was tough but not running for President), wouldn't today---in a strict legal sense----define what he underwent back then in Vietnam as torture, then why do some---including the so-called liberal press ---even tacitly accept, and at times willingly propagate the notion that McCain is soooo "reluctant" to talk about his time as a P.O.W? As if physically, it was some kind of painful experience he couldn't possibly relish sharing?

However, we now know that isn't true because we know now it wasn't torture because now it isn't defined as such. [sigh...] Are these media biased or something? What good does it do Senator McCain for them to present him as some kind of snivelling weakling whose threshold for pain is below what is now legally recognized as torture. In some cases, media are even going further than blatant insinuation, reporting on how McCain loses his bearings at the merest mention of his mortal inadequacy. Take the following example ABC News' David Wright reported a couple months ago:

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

Soon after, McCain "collected himself" and apologized for losing his cool.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," adding, "I am always reluctant to talk about these things."

In the same article, McCain, betraying a textbook case of integrity-explosive emotional incontinence, advised Obama on how he should punish the egregiously inconsiderate Gen. Wesley Clark for refusing to believe that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is qualification enough to be president-----"cut him loose." He underwent a lot of pain as a result of being shot down, albeit not of the torturous kind, and some people have the audacity to assume that that might not have primed him perfectly for the presidency?

Or was McCain "visibly angry" and "reluctant" simply because this memory was much too torturous despite its lacking a legally-certified classification of torture? Or, did he magnanimously not want to portray himself as exploiting his participation in The Domino Theory War for political advantage? Either way (all plausible explanations being true of course) would exemplify a mighty-fine, attractive, All-American candidate, and a very competent Leaderofthefreeworld (who, unlike most arugula-eating-geography-snob elitists, knows that Iraq borders Pakistan).

And yet, couldn't McCain very easily redeem his newly self-inflicted, fractured sense of honor? If only he could just re-flip-flop by immanently disregarding the veto support he gave The President to thwart Congress' latest attempt to bring the CIA in line with the Army Field Manual ("A rule book that prescribes mostly psychological methods of interrogation, and clearly prohibits the use of forced nudity, waterboarding, hooding and the use of military dogs")! The senator could then boldly reassert---- to himself----something he had already declared before nullifying it by later backing The Decider-In-Chief:

I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about.

Subtly, if not silently, reaffirming this statement could provide himself the retroactively moral honor of again being able to mention all the torture he suffered through in Vietnam, not "reluctantly," but loudly and proudly.

Still, if that didn't work he could also---somewhere in his soul---renounce his "nay" vote against the Intelligence Authorization Bill, which had it passed, would have outlawed waterboarding and "harsh interrogation tactics." Then McCain---in principle----wouldn't be unwittingly implying in deeds that he wasn't technically tortured, and thus could officially get down to the business of overtly reminding everyone that he was----in fact---barbarically tortured...

And alas, he already has, as his campaign shifts into high-integrity gear (see last 1/4 of the ad to see McCain after not being tortured by the Vietcong)!