mirrorpool

Harry Potter Novels

2008-02-29T23:01:00.000-08:00

I've recently finished reading all of the Harry Potter novels in order from the beginning. I'm a latecomer to the series, but was attracted from a literary standpoint after the seventh book came out in July 2007. I was intrigued by the inter-connectedness of the plots and the way writer J. K. Rowling was able to chart the progression of the characters with increasingly sophisticated language. It's a magical world, in more ways than one, and it revolves around Harry, Ron, and Hermione, three best friends at school (a very unusual school), and their adventures year by year.

The first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, worked as a stand-alone while also introducing the possibility of a sequel. Rowling famously had trouble selling the book to publishers and her story of living in relative poverty until its initial success is an inspiration to aspiring writers everywhere. Sorcerer's Stone is more of a children's book than the others and this lends it a unique charm of it's own. The writing is not quite on par with the later books, but this is understandable and happens to fit the younger age of its intended audience.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is the second book and follows the characters' next year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The story is already starting to exhibit an arc that will eventually require seven books to fulfill. Some of the darker aspects of the overall plot are introduced, and there is a stunning sequence involving a diary and an alternate reality that sets the tone for what is to come. The majesty of the whole is perceptible by the end; it's an auspicious follow-up.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban is the third installment and the last to have an ending within itself. The first three can be seen as a block, almost a trilogy. After this is also where the length of the novels start to increase exponentially. Up until now each book was slightly longer than the previous one; this becomes more and more necessary as the series reaches a new level of complexity. Also, the main characters are crossing into their teen-age years, another marker that adds depth.

Starting with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, each book is a continuation of the saga with intricate plot twists that resonate throughout. However, the quality control begins to be suspect for the first time here. The sheer length of the whole and level of interest in each succeeding plot twist, combined with deadlines and expectations, inevitably meant that sometimes editing had to be minimized. There are poorly constructed scenes that don't work as well as they might, probably because there just wasn't time to attend to them properly. It is quite a project and a daunting task; and of course, minor flaws should be forgiven and overlooked. Consequently, though Goblet of Fire is a bit unwieldy, it is pivotal in the grand scheme of things.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the fifth book and darkest so far. It is also the longest; quite an achievement since it is better written than the previous one. Rowling is beginning to show maturation as an author; she also seems to be writing more for older readers now, something that the growth of her characters thankfully encourages. The events portrayed in the Order of the Phoenix effectively set up the final two novels of the series.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the penultimate book and is conversely happier than the previous one (it had to be), yet ultimately even darker as it sets the stage for the denouement. It's not quite as long as its predecessor and the story is tighter, perhaps coinciding with Rowling's natural improvement as a writer. There is also a romantic element that is explored here to excellent effect; the fruition of seeds planted earlier.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the final novel in the series and is a crowning achievement in every way. The book provides entertainment on a grand scale, while achieving closure that will satisfy most fans. Any quibbling is just that in my opinion, for this is writing that is comparable with the great classics of literature (at least for children or young adults). Only time will be the ultimate judge, but if readers have any say, the Harry Potter novels will rank as a pinnacle of it's genre, and a phenomenon that transcends such labels. It's an extraordinary accomplishment and one that is sure to stand for many years to come.

Abrupt Ending

2008-01-31T23:27:00.000-08:00

I've recently finished watching a television series that was cancelled before it could reach its potential, but that mostly achieved its intentions anyway. The show is Firefly, a science-fiction western that lasted just 15 episodes (only 12 were aired). The fan outcry was such that a film, Serenity, was eventually produced to help tie up some loose ends and provide closure. The movie accomplished its goal, but created an appetite for more product that will probably never materialize.

I was generally impressed with the series, though by the end of the Complete Firefly DVD set, I was beginning to agree with the network (gasp) that perhaps the show was beginning to run its course. I think that it would have been better, though, to at least have allowed it to last one full season. As it was, viewers starting to discover the show were confused by changing air times; then it suddenly vanished without explanation. The impression, mostly true, was that it was never given a fair chance.

Part of the show's appeal was its hip, pop culture take on the future and, unfortunately, that may also have been its downfall. The lighthearted joking sometimes made it a bit hard to take the plots seriously. The characters were likable (some of them only after a fashion) and were developed in serial form; this hooked viewers, but required a dedication that was perhaps unrealistic for general audiences. It was, after all, a genre program, something historically dreaded by network executives.

It's always a shame when actors, crew, writers, and producers invest time and heart into a show and then the plug is pulled without a seeming care. An endeavor like this is more than fodder to satisfy advertisers; it's an art form that needs time to fulfill it's creative purposes. Until the networks realize this, they will continue cancelling excellent programs and replacing them with mediocre shows that do even worse in the ratings. Firefly stands as a fascinating example of an unfinished series that will nevertheless be remembered for years to come.

Another Year

2007-12-31T23:02:00.000-08:00

A new year is nigh, and hope competes with trepidation at what lies in store. The election year has already encroached on our holiday season and is set to pounce the moment we recover from New Year's Day and acknowledge 2008. It's an exciting contest that promises to address the abject failure of the current administration, but right now I don't really care who wins as long as we get a Democrat in the White House. It's also important to make gains in Congress so that something positive can finally be accomplished.

This year I hope to finish work on my new book of short stories and get it ready for publication. At least I should be able to make major progress towards that goal. I'd also like to improve my website, and sell the one book I do have out. Another resolution I have is to take things slower, a la the slow food movement. Our lives today have become so hectic that it's hard to have time to really enjoy the benefits that all our technology is supposed to afford.

I'm going to continue to read lots of books, see many movies and worthwhile television programs, and attempt to maintain a semblance of balance between them. I'm also going to try to listen to more music this year, as I've been neglecting it in favor of the aforementioned. Eating more vegetables and getting more sleep would also be nice. I'm looking at this as just another year, but one that could be monumental if more people start believing in a bright common future that includes all of us.

Eerie Relevance

2007-11-30T23:49:00.000-08:00

I recently saw Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb again for the first time in many years, and though it was even funnier than I remembered, it was also scarier. The situation it lampoons is more likely to occur now than it was at the time (1963). In the movie it's a crazy general that precipitates the ultimate destruction; but now, in the real world, we have the president and vice president of the United States apparently looking to initiate World War III, in the guise of trying to prevent it. I think we'd be better off with Peter Sellers' version of the leader of the free world. As it is, Vice President Dick Cheney has always reminded me more of Dr. Strangelove himself (also played by Sellers); the misguided mastermind of the doomsday scenario. President Bush appears bent on creating a lasting legacy no matter the cost, and is perhaps best represented by Slim Pickens' gung ho character with the cowboy hat.

At the beginning of the movie there is a disclaimer by the United States Army that the events depicted are not possible due to safeguards that are in place. Unfortunately, our own government is not immune from creating the conditions under which MAD (mutually assured destruction) was so feared during the Cold War. All of the hysterics aimed at Iran (for instance) are just inciting the very events they pretend to address. If we are really so concerned about whether Iran is building nuclear power plants, then we should be offering them alternative energy options instead, like solar, wind and geothermal. So far no one in our government has even suggested this, even as a bluff. Until we are willing to provide a sane example, we will be failing to lead the international community as we so seem to desire.

Stanley Kubrick was famous for maintaining complete artistic control over every aspect of his films, and his entire catalog is worth seeing just to study the unique perspective on the human condition he was so adept at portraying. In this new century, it's sad that Dr. Strangelove, though it may be Kubrick's most accessible film, should be more relevant than 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that tried to provide a glimpse of the future. It is, however, a tribute to his genius that he was so far (40+ years) ahead of his time in terms of both technique and creative vision. I can't recommend this film highly enough, and hope that we will all have many more years on this planet in which to view it.

Modicum of Justice

2007-10-31T23:48:00.000-07:00

The court case I was on for five weeks as a juror is finally over. I'm allowed to talk about it, but the case is still so sensitive to the parties involved that I will refrain from giving a lot of details. Rather, I'll just highlight some of the key events.

At the beginning there were five defendants and four lawyers, not counting the plaintiff and his lawyer; but after a couple days two of the parties settled out of court, leaving three defendants with two lawyers (one of the lawyers represented two individuals). I immediately recognized the case as one I had read about in the newspaper, and thought this would disqualify me from serving. However, since it was straight reportage instead of an editorial, I was allowed to remain.

It was a construction defect case that pitted the developer's contractor versus the subcontractors (framers and siders). It involved high-end townhomes way up in the hills that had been plagued with water intrusion problems (both flooding and mildew). We were able to take a field trip to the scene on a chartered tour bus, and that was perhaps the most fun of the entire trial. It rained that morning for the first time in weeks though (figures), and just one walk on the grass around one of the buildings caused me to get soaked all the way through my socks.

The whole area was a water magnet, and it doesn't surprise me that there were moisture issues on the property. However, there were adjacent lots (one of which was originally part of the same project) that, at least outwardly, didn't seem to share the same hazards. One problem was that the buildings in question were built on a slope with the worst damage towards the bottom. After this excursion, we had lunch, and still had a full afternoon of testimony to listen to.

On one of the subsequent mornings an expert for the plaintiff answered questions on the stand, and then after a break, was dressed down to his construction clothes. He proceeded to install a window into a frame right there in the courtroom! First he installed it the way it was done on the site and then he built another display showing how he believed it should be done. He got back on the witness stand and answered more questions, including a blistering cross-examination that made him out to be an idiot, though earlier he had appeared completely credible.

Similar situations occurred with the defense witnesses, where the plaintiff's lawyer would annihilate seemingly reasonable testimony. It was left to us to decide who to believe and, in my opinion, it's one of the flaws of the system that no independent experts testified, only those chosen by the lawyers representing their clients. There were several long afternoons of PowerPoint demonstrations conducted by both sides, involving photographs of the alleged damage. More displays were produced and 4 binders were filled with the salient points (mostly contracts and photographs), eventually reaching an astronomical 378 exhibits.

There were some amusing moments, such as when the plaintiff's lawyer was unable to locate a photograph among the 200 or so in evidence. One of the opposing lawyers was grinning (as were we), but he was in the same position a little later when he futilely searched for a document among the mountains of papers in front of him. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer objected one morning to one of the defense assistants cross-examining a witness, because she happened to be wearing nearly the exact same outfit as her; they made quite a pair sitting next to each other at the lawyers' table (objection overruled). And, during one of the slide shows, a laptop cord accidentally knocked over a cup of water and the lawyers were sent scrambling for paper towels. "Water intrusion!" one of them exclaimed.

I made 77 pages of notes, completely filling a provided notebook, while some fellow jurors had 2 or 3 notebooks full (these were helpful during deliberations). There were many interruptions (several a day) where one of the lawyers would insist on approaching the bench, and occasionally they had to retire to the judge's chambers. I tried to keep track of how many times each event occurred, but lost count after awhile. We were getting quite used to all of this when the defense unexpectedly rested one day after a break, when a particular photograph wasn't allowed into evidence because of insufficient documentation.

The closing arguments were quite dramatic, with one the defense lawyers actually throwing things around (bolts and small window frames) to illustrate the waste that would ensue if all the work had to be redone at the site. It took us a day and a half to reach our verdict, and we believe an equitable solution was reached, though nobody got everything they wanted. I feel sorry for the homeowners who still have to muddle through 18 months of reconstruction.

I learned a lot and know more about the construction business than I ever thought I wanted to, not to mention the remarkable opportunity to study the courts first hand. It's an experience I wouldn't trade for anything in the world, though I hope to never have to repeat it. I'm sure everyone involved in the case would agree.

Sequestered Days

2007-09-30T23:51:00.000-07:00

It's been an interesting month of jury duty as I become used to having the courthouse as my more-than-symbolic second job. I've felt disconnected from the outside world, and the news seems distant and ineffectual. In a way, it's just like before only now I'm completely focused on surviving the ordeal of facing the courtroom nearly every weekday. The case is tedious yet fascinating as it lurches towards its inevitable, though unknown, conclusion.

Once it's over, I will be afforded a fresh perspective on life and its multifaceted levels, but for now I'm yearning for a return to normalcy. I'm trying to take the disruption in stride and apply it to mounting experience, and feel certain it will be worthwhile in the long run. There have been several almost fun events, like a field trip on a chartered bus and witnessing the construction right before our eyes of display models that illustrate the points the attorneys are trying to make.

I have a front row seat and it's better than reality TV (of course, almost anything is). I appreciate courtroom dramas in movies and television more now, with Perry Mason at the top of my list. It's amazing how many trial scenes pop up when I least expect it. For instance, I just saw the famous (though I hadn't heard of it) court scene in a BBC production of Charles Dickens' The Pickwick Papers. It's either very cosmic that I'm seeing this right now, or I'm just noticing these things more.

I'm learning all I can from the real-life proceedings, with the hope that perhaps my future will benefit from exposure to this other world. The courthouse is a microcosm of every layer of society from the common criminal to the most upstanding citizen. From poor to wealthy, we're all scrunched in here together like animals in a cage. Well, maybe not quite that bad. At least if we stay on the right side of the law, we get to leave at the end of the day with our lives intact.

Vacation Summons

2007-08-31T23:57:00.000-07:00

I was midway through a week's vacation when I received another jury summons. It's the fourth time I've been called, and I wasn't particularly thrilled with the prospect; especially since they wanted me for four weeks or more this time. That's a big commitment to expect of someone, no matter how interested they might be. It can be a stunning disruption of our already complicated lives (not to mention work schedules). The people that don't want to hear my whining are usually those who have never done it before and would like an opportunity to serve. I'm all for giving them a chance.

Once a person's first jury duty is complete, they should be able to sign a waiver signalling whether they would like to do it again, along with the option of changing their mind later. That way others could be brought into the pool and those that wanted to could stay on the list if they felt so inclined. Maybe there could be a requirement that actually serving on a jury, instead of merely getting dismissed, would constitute fulfillment of your obligation.

It is true, however, that even though I never want to go through the process at first, I invariably find it fascinating once it gets going. The experience can be invaluable, and I do believe that having a jury of your peers is a superior way to argue a case. If you are a defendant, this ensures that you have the likelihood of a fair trial. I've been on cases where I wasn't so sure about the wisdom of this (humans can often be biased no matter how hard they try not to be), but overall I think the random juror system surpasses all alternatives.

There is a bit of a dilemma when it comes to long cases that burden all parties involved, but the only remedy is acceptance and perseverance. I have to admit that although I would probably readily sign a paper excusing me from all subsequent jury duty, by doing so I might be depriving myself of future opportunities to witness sometimes incredible courtroom dramas first-hand. A deeper understanding of the inner workings of the court can be obtained this way that can't be achieved otherwise. In light of this I plan to embrace the situation, and attempt to find justice, elusive as it may be.

Garbo Lives

2007-07-31T23:31:00.000-07:00

My favorite actress is Greta Garbo and I've recently viewed all of her available films on DVD. She began her career in her native Sweden, with The Saga of Gosta Berling (1924) being her first major role. It marked both the culmination and the end of the Swedish golden age of cinema. The director, Mauritz Stiller, and Garbo were wooed by Hollywood and were enticed to come to America in 1926. Stiller's career stalled because his exacting techniques were ill-suited to American sensibilities, while Garbo's took off and she became one of Hollywood's greatest stars.

Torrent, currently unreleased, is her first American film and it established her as someone to watch. Stiller didn't direct, but still had a hand in production. Her second, The Temptress (1926), is the earliest of her MGM films to be enshrined on DVD. Originally Stiller directed, at Garbo's insistence, but he was soon replaced after creative clashes with the studio, and the film was finished by Fred Niblo. It's a wild ride, done with exceptional taste, and is a stunning example of Garbo's luminous ability to convey the deepest emotion with just a glance or gesture. She could do it with her eyes, without even moving.

Flesh and the Devil (1926) was next and it was the first to pair her with John Gilbert, an actor she was also romantically involved with offscreen. Their romance was so well publicised that it was eventually doomed by its own inevitability. The film itself was a huge hit at the time and solidified both their careers. Next was Love (also with Gilbert), a silent version of Anna Karenina that is currently unavailable. The Divine Woman (1928) followed, and only nine minutes survive, but they are worth seeing. The Mysterious Woman (1928) was her first undercover spy movie; it's a tour-de-force. The rest of her silent films, A Woman of Affairs, Wild Orchids, The Single Standard, and The Kiss are all presently out of print.

Her first talkie, Anna Christie (1930), was much anticipated and is notable for the world getting to hear her speak onscreen for the first time. Garbo Talks! was the cry. The studio was a bit nervous about how audiences would react to her thick accent; but instead she was astounding, and blew away the naysayers. In fact, she turned out to be one of the few to make a successful transition to sound. "Gimme a visky and don't be stingy, baby" was her first line. A German version was shot at the same time and released a year later. Romance, Inspiration, and Susan Lennox (Her Fall and Rise) are currently unavailable.

Mata Hari (1931) was the first to fully capture the mystique of Garbo, and her persona catapults the film. Also, the costumes were elaborate and set the tone for the rest of her career. Grand Hotel (1932) is one of her most renowned films and exemplifies her image as the inexplicable recluse. She is sublime as the moody Russian ballerina, Grusinskaya, who doesn't appear for the first 20 minutes of the film; typical for Garbo, as her entrance, or the camera finding her, are used for the utmost dramatic affect. "I want to be alone" is her most famous line, and perhaps unfairly contributed to the public's image of her after her retirement. It's an excellent film that holds up well today, with an all-star cast including John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore, and Joan Crawford in a star-making role.

As You Desire Me is unavailable, but her next film, Queen Christina (1933), is among her very best. She is reunited with John Gilbert (at her insistence), in his last performance; he was one of the actors that had a hard time adjusting to the sound era. It's a wonderful pairing, and the resultant film is one of the classic historical dramas of all time. The Painted Veil is out of print, but her second attempt at Anna Karenina (1935), this time as a talkie, followed and is a spectacular rendition of the story. To my mind she is Anna Karenina. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast was unable to rise to her level, a common malady.

Camille (1936) is one of her finest roles, and the film represents the peak of her career. Based on the novel by Alexander Dumas, everything clicked in this exquisite romance for the ages. Conquest followed and is unavailable. Ninotchka (1939), however, is her last hurrah. Garbo Laughs! was the tag, and it's true. The outfits weren't as dazzling this time, as it's a more modern story than usual for her; and for once she plays against type, as a non-tragic figure. It was her first comedy and it works on many levels, and stands as her last great film. Ernst Lubitsch directed, and he wanted to do another with her in the same vein, but the studio had other ideas. They wanted to push their luck even further by having her play a character completely unlike anything she had done before.

Two-Faced Woman was roundly panned by the critics and was released two weeks before Pearl Harbor. Over the last half decade, she had become more of a draw in Europe than America, especially with her series of costume dramas, but the European audience was shrinking due to the encroaching war. When the U.S. entered World War 2, she went to Louis B. Mayer's office at MGM and asked to be let out of her contract, offering to return after the war. Alas, it was never to be. At least she was able to recognize what her strengths were, and avoided the sad decline that shadowed many actors of her time.

Garbo epitomized the grandeur of Hollywood's golden age, harkening to a mythical utopia that was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. It was 1941, and she retired at age 36 after approximately 25 films. She lived another 48 years, not in seclusion as is commonly believed, but living a quiet life, gardening, shopping, and visiting with friends. Often there would be Garbo sightings on the streets of Manhattan, but her avoidance of photographers became legendary. Sadly, she had a reputation for being reclusive only because she wanted to be out of the spotlight.

Greta Garbo remains one the greatest actresses of her era or any other. She dominated every film she was in, and this was both natural, and perhaps a drawback to her desire to make a great film in and of itself. Some of what she attained was artistry for its own sake, transforming even simple melodrama into timelessness. All of her films deserve to be preserved for her presence alone, and a handful represent a pinnacle of achievement in filmmaking. She is more than an icon, and her legacy will live forever as each succeeding generation discovers her inimitable charm and mysterious, unfathomable beauty.

Links:

http://imdb.com/name/nm0001256/

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lenin/garbo.html

http://www.classicmovies.org/articles/aa091700a.htm

http://home.hiwaay.net/~oliver/garbo.html

Mr. Bond

2007-06-30T23:38:00.000-07:00

My latest project has been to view all of the James Bond films in order and evaluate them both as entertainment and as cultural documents. There are few film franchises that can boast the sheer number of people who have followed the entire series for so many years, and the way the Bond films have permeated our society. Virtually everyone knows what you are talking about when you refer to something as Bond-like. I had only seen several of the movies over the years, but since each one is based on the same dynamic formula, I felt that I had a good grasp of the basic concept to begin with.

Since most of the leads and many of the guest stars in The Avengers television series had appeared in various Bond films, I began by looking up which ones they were in and realized that I could own all 20 films in the new James Bond deluxe DVD set. This includes everything except the latest release, Casino Royale, which I purchased separately, thus acquiring all 21 official Bond films to date. There are a couple unofficial releases that I may get around to eventually, but I wanted to study the main series in its entirety first. Since the new Casino Royale is something of a prequel, being Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, I decided to start with that and then go back to the beginning of the movie sequence.

I was generally impressed with the new film and agree with most critics that it has revitalized the franchise. For a story originally set in the Cold War of the mid 1950's, it was remarkably updated to include modern computer technology and cell phones. It was perhaps a bit long (the longest yet at 144 minutes), but I would be hard pressed to identify where it could be cut; each scene seems necessary to the plot. It begins before Bond had achieved 00 status and extends to his first case as 007. All in all, it's an excellent entry in the oeuvre, and portends well for the future. Daniel Craig is a fine James Bond, and adds a grittiness that was perhaps lacking in some of the more recent incarnations.

The original screen Bond, of course, was the inimitable Sean Connery. Many believe his performances has never been equalled, and indeed, the first five films starring him are the most consistent in the series. Starting with Dr. No in 1962, the tone was set with thrilling action, breathtaking scenery, exotic locales, outrageous stunts, cutting-edge gadgets, and beautiful women. It was the beginning of the 1960's and there was a new flamboyance that the film benefited from. The first Bond Girl was Ursula Andress and she is still one of the best. Her opening appearance out of the sea is one of the most famous and imitated shots of the series.

The success of the first film allowed the producers to purchase the rights to all the other James Bond novels by Ian Fleming, in turn increasing the popularity of the books themselves. President Kennedy was seen reading From Russia with Love on an airplane, and when asked, said it was one of his favorite novels. This helped catapult sales of all of Ian Fleming's books in the U.S. and launch the phenomenon worldwide. All of a sudden a secret agent craze swept through the entertainment industry that lasted most of the sixties and continues in many ways to this day.

From Russia with Love was soon filmed, and it remains one of the best in the cycle. The Cold War allusions were softened slightly for diplomatic reasons, but the metaphors speak for themselves. The criminal organization SPECTRE is introduced here and remains a force in several more of the films. One of the charms of this film is that Bond still lives by his wits most of the time rather than relying on extravagant gadgets. This would soon change for good or ill. Making his debut is Desmond Llewelyn as Q (Quartermaster), the man responsible for the technical innovations the series became famous for.

The third film, Goldfinger, is an utter classic that set the tone for the rest of the series with its high-end gadgetry and over-the-top stunt work. Q's part was now a regular feature and technology would play a major role from now on. Honor Blackman, having just left The Avengers, stars as Pussy Galore, one the most well-known Bond Girls of all time. She was able to use some of the Judo moves she learned while doing the television show; maybe that's why she was such a perfect choice for the role.

After this is Thunderball, a pull-out-all-the-stops extravaganza that perhaps seems overlong due to the extended underwater sequences. The underwater cinematography was state-of-the-art at the time, though, and it is understandable that it was featured so prominently. By this time, each film was designed to outdo the previous ones in sheer opulence and even length. Starting here, most of the films would extend to at least two hours or longer.

Next is a personal favorite, You Only Live Twice, set in Japan. It features an incredible extinct volcano hide-out for SPECTRE that provides one of the best climaxes in the series so far, and that's no mean feat. Sean Connery announced his retirement from James Bond during production, so maybe that contributed to the sense of extra pizazz at the end.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed, with a new Bond, George Lazenby. It also starred Diana Rigg (another Avengers alumnus) as the first realistic Bond Girl. This film remains one of my favorites, though it is an anomaly in the series. Lazenby burned his bridges during production and was not asked to return, though he does a credible job.

Sean Connery was talked into doing one more after the search for a new Bond stalled. He returned in Diamonds Are Forever, and while good, it's perhaps not up to par with the first five classics. Still, in the pantheon of those to come over the next forty years, it holds its own admirably.

Roger Moore was chosen as a more permanent replacement. His first outing, Live and Let Die, is a spectacular tour-de-force that unfortunately appears dated perhaps more than many of the others. The blaxploitation theme is so early seventies, and Moore appears too white-bread in comparison. This hurts his debut slightly, though it's not of extreme consequence; in a way, the datedness adds to the fun of watching it so many years later. There is also a Voodoo subplot that adds to the proceedings and a memorable crocodile sequence. This was the first James Bond film I ever saw, and so it remains a prototype for me. It was fun seeing Jane Seymour as a Bond Girl, in one of her first major roles. I also particularly like the title song by Paul McCartney and the George Martin score.

The Man With The Golden Gun finds Moore becoming more comfortable with the part, and features Christopher Lee as one of the best villains in the series. This film remains a personal favorite of mine from the Moore era, one reason being the energy crisis background and its focus in solar power as the solution. It also stands as the last one with Harry Salzman as co-producer. Since the beginning, Albert R. Broccoli and Salzman had overseen production; now Broccoli remained as sole producer. The Spy Who Loved Me followed, with the idea being introduced that East and West could work together, reflecting current events at the time. This entry was the furthest departure from Ian Fleming's original story in the canon, with essentially only the title being used.

Moonraker continues the finger-on-the-pulse nature of the series with a film about the space race, and was an attempt to compete with the new Star Wars and Star Trek movies that came out around that time. It also marked the final appearance of Bernard Lee, who had been there from the beginning as M, Bond's boss at MI6 (British Secret Service). The next few films featured a Minister of Defense and a Chief of Staff as replacements. For Your Eyes Only is another personal favorite and represents a return to basics. It is perhaps the last consistently great Roger Moore James Bond film.

Octopussy followed, and though it contained some excellent sequences, most notably the scenes filmed in India, it would mark the beginning of the inevitable downward slide that was only hinted at before. At this point, the scripts became more predictable, even cartoonish at times, though never completely losing touch with the original premise. Part of the problem was that they had run out of Ian Fleming novels, and most of the stories from here on in had to be written by someone else. This coincided with Moore slowly becoming too old for the part.

A View To A Kill is the final one for Moore, and is usually considered the worst of the entire series; though with that as the consensus, I found it much better than expected. In fact, the fine extended appearance of The Avengers' Patrick MacNee helps this entry reach into the more than acceptable range. The film also marked the last portrayal by Lois Maxwell of Moneypenny (M's secretary), a recurring character since the first film.

Timothy Dalton accepted the role of Bond for two films, The Living Daylights, and Licence to Kill. Both of these are exceptional and present a character perhaps closer to Fleming's vision than any others. Dalton was originally signed to appear in one more film, but production delays forced him to give up the part. He never really regretted it, but it did keep him from being considered one of the main actors to play Bond. Besides Sean Connery and Roger Moore, this role was filled by his successor, Pierce Brosnan.

The first film with Pierce Brosnan as Bond was Goldeneye, and though good, it was perhaps flat compared to its predecessors. It did introduce Judi Dench as M, a part she is still playing. Also, taking over as producer after many years as production assistant, was Barbara Broccoli, Albert's daughter. She and her step-brother, Michael G. Wilson (also a long-time assistant), would co-produce the series from now on. Brosnan found his footing with Tomorrow Never Dies, a personal favorite. Achieving world domination through media manipulation is a prescient theme that holds up well today. It was nice to see Teri Hatcher as a Bond Girl; also Michelle Yeoh gave a notable performance.

The World Is Not Enough came next, and here the scripts were starting to lose their originality again. Though still entertaining, the series was starting to show its age. Also marked was the final appearance of LLewelyn as Q; he is shown grooming his replacement played by John Cleese. Die Another Day was another valiant effort, but it was clearly time to reassess. Halle Barrie was hot as the new Bond Girl, but she wasn't enough to rescue the film from mediocrity. It wasn't awful by any means and had many fine moments, but the character of James Bond needed freshening for the new century, and it would be four years before returning with a vengeance.

The future for the Bond franchise now appears bright on the strength of Casino Royale and the new one due next year so far known as "Bond 22." Considering the record of the last 40+ years, I'm optimistic that the series can continue almost forever, and look forward to the endless possibilities inherent in the most successful formula of our time. Generations to come will thrill to the timeless adventures that also recorded our culture to an astonishing degree. A thriving James Bond means that there is hope for our own survival as the startling present hurtles toward the unknown.

Links:

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/films/

http://www.jamesbond.com/

http://www.mi6.co.uk/mi6.php3

Cindy Sheehan Peace

2007-05-31T23:29:00.000-07:00

On Memorial Day, Cindy Sheehan withdrew from activism in order to recover some of her previous life that was lost ever since her son died in Iraq and she subsequently galvanized the Peace Movement. She will be sorely missed by her fellow activists, but maybe the torch she carried can be passed on, in the hopes that her message will not disappear from the national discourse.

She was vilified by both the right (for disagreeing with their defence of endless war and their definition of supporting the troops), and the left (for her uncompromising stance in favor of peace). After first being the darling of the media during the dog days of summer 2005, when she camped out near George Bush's vacation retreat and demanded to speak with him personally about the "noble cause" that her son and so many others had died for in Iraq, she has since faced an increasingly hostile mainstream press that can't understand how she could "trash the president" or his policies; and she did it all while retaining her composure and dignity.

She didn't care about the politics of the situation and finally she stopped supporting the Democratic Party because of its failure (so far) to end the war. For this she received scorn from leftwing bloggers that eventually was enough to cause her to rethink her commitment to the cause itself. These are certainly trying times for the movement, and she deserves a chance to rest; maybe this is a good time for her to take a step back and look at the larger picture. She has said that in the future she will return to humanitarianism, but not to peace rallies and marches. She feels betrayed by the Democratic Congress that voted to continue funding the war without timelines, and is frustrated by the lack of evidence that all of the hemming and hawing accomplished anything.

One problem is that, though the reasons given for the invasion continue to appear elusive (or illusive), there are substantial rationales in place that preclude ever completely leaving Iraq. A timetable for withdrawal would force the issue and cause us to face certain truths that many would rather see obscured. This war was started by a Bush administration determined to secure Middle Eastern oil for its corporate sponsors, and unfortunately, many Democrats are also beholden to the same lobbyists. That's why some Democratic candidates for president pay lip service to the anti-war movement, but support a continued presence in Iraq for years to come.

Fourteen bases, scheduled to revert to four permanent bases once we have obtained long-term oil contracts, and an American Embassy (the largest in the world), are entrenched to maintain control over any action perceived to threaten U.S. interests. And make no mistake, that means U. S. business interests, not the interests of the American people. It may appear on the surface that we really do need the oil, but in reality, conservation and alternative resources (solar, wind, biomass), combined with friendly trading for oil with foreign countries while we convert to them, is a far better long-term solution.

Despite all the rhetoric from presidential candidates about ending the war, until oil can be mentioned as the reason we are there, no real progress can be made. Even Cindy Sheehan fails to address this issue, while understandably focusing on the human costs. It's hard to build a case for leaving Iraq without elucidating the real purpose of our government's agenda there. Until we expose the corporate basis of our presence in the Middle East, the U.S. will never begin forming a sane foreign policy.

We could offer to build solar, wind, and biomass converters in Iraq and Iran, especially since the latter is lobbying for increased energy and we oppose their current nuclear enrichment so vehemently (while promoting it for ourselves and allies); yet not once has this been suggested by our diplomats, president, or Congress. No mainstream media source has even mentioned the possibility of using alternative energies in the Middle East, and "The U.S and it's allies believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, while the Iranian's insist that their nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only," line is repeated ad nauseum in virtually every news item on the subject. Ultimately, the use of nuclear energy for even "peaceful" purposes must be challenged. That is where we have the biggest failure of leadership by both our country and our allies.

The Democrats shouldn't be given up on in the face of this latest setback over timelines for many practical reasons. The Green and Libertarian parties, for instance, lack seats in Congress, and thus would be powerless in the unlikely event that they could win the presidency. Instead of playing spoiler, third parties should lobby for switching to a Parliamentary system, where all parties can share power according to their level of support. It's true, though, that Americans are probably never going to agree to changing the two-party system, both because of tradition, which reaches back to the forming of the republic, and because we tend to favor a winner take all "championship" type battle for president. Unless or until this paradigm evolves, coalitions must be formed within the existing structure to help bring about positive change.

It is counter-productive to work against those trying their best to achieve our goals, and therefore I disagreed with Cindy Sheehan when she and her group protested the Democrats at their inauguration this January. I also disagree with her and others that are abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of third parties with even less of a chance to end the war. Though they have a slim majority, Congressional Democrats currently lack the votes to override a recalcitrant executive. We must work towards increasing their majority, rather than challenging them at the ballot box in pursuit of unrealistic, though well-intentioned ideals. Change must come in increments, unfortunately, and it will take years to reverse the damage this administration has wrought. In fact, some of it can never be mended, and here I share her frustration.

Cindy can take heart that she helped make a difference when it was needed and that her sacrifices were not in vain. Achieving peace may seem insurmountable now, but it is never hopeless as long as we remain vigilant and focused on our goal. Here's hoping that she can find the strength to rejoin us at some point and bring more of her inspiration to our eternal cause.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1573/

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/05/1768/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014385.php

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18340

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052907A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052607Z.shtml

Hitchcock Journey

2007-04-30T23:45:00.000-07:00

Over the last year I have been on a grand mission to view every Alfred Hitchcock film in chronological order. I had purchased several sets and realized just how close I was to owning all 52 extant films. Four are presently unreleased on DVD: Rebecca, Notorious, Spellbound, and The Paradine Case. I've seen the first three on the big screen or video at one time or another, so only the fourth remains as completely unseen. I've heard it is among his worst films, but I've also learned that some others with bad reputations weren't nearly as awful as they were cracked up to be. One of my goals was to view them all objectively with fresh eyes.

All 19 available British films are contained on two sets and are public domain, so the DVD quality varies. Each film has its charms; even the ones far removed from Hitchcock's eventual oeuvre. In fact, even though some are pretty much straight dramas essentially done as contractual obligations, the Hitchcock touch can still be discerned, and provided an opportunity for him to develop his craft. The first 6 are silent, but Hitchcock's use of imagery rather than a lot of subtitles, makes them unique for the time period. His first film as director was 1927's The Lodger, and appropriately set the tone for his later style. A series of Jack the Ripper-type murders confounds London, and a family becomes suspicious that their upstairs lodger may be the culprit. Be careful not to read the blurb on the DVD cover before viewing, as it maddeningly gives away the essence of the mystery. I've learned to never read even the slightest sentence (if it can be helped) about a movie before viewing it, even if I've seen it before. It's generally preferable to suspend disbelief if you can.

The other silents are: The Ring, Easy Virtue, The Farmer's Wife, Champagne, and The Manxman. I enjoyed all of them, but they are admittedly probably for Hitchcock fans or film buffs (of which I am both) only. Hitchcock's first talkie, Blackmail, was actually filmed in both silent and talking versions, of which only the latter survives. Appropriately, the first 20 minutes or so are without dialogue. This movie is the first that is instantly recognizable as what we have come to know as an Alfred Hitchcock film. It was still an uneven road, though, before Hitchcock had more or less complete creative control over both choosing and directing his projects. Juno and the Paycock, The Skin Game, Rich and Strange, Number 17, and Jamaica Inn are in this category. Of the remaining British films, Murder!, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, Secret Agent, Sabotage, Young and Innocent, and The Lady Vanishes, are the best. After this impressive output, he was approached by American producers, and agreed to come to Hollywood to work for David O. Selznick.

His first film in America was Rebecca, starring Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier, and it was a big success, though Hitchcock was obligated to stay close to the Daphne Du Maurier novel, while doing things the Selznick way much of the time. It's still a masterpiece of its kind, and I find little to quibble about in its presentation. Next was Foreign Correspondent, another tour-de-force, that established the Hitchcock style in Hollywood as its own entity once and for all. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a rare romantic comedy for Hitchcock, though there were almost always at least traces of the genre in his work. It's thoroughly enjoyable for what it is. Next came Suspicion, which combines more of the traits we've come to expect in a true Hitchcock film. Joan Fontaine won the Academy Award for best actress, the only such victory for a Hitchcock cast member. It also includes Cary Grant in the first of his many roles with the director. The ending had to be changed in order to make the film more palatable to audiences (and Grant fans), and the film has been criticized for this, but I particularly like the way it turns out.

World War II provided the basis for Saboteur, another fine vehicle, and features the Empire State Building in the thrilling finale (sorry to mention the ending, but it is quite famous). Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock's own favorite, followed, and it portrayed a typical American small town as a backdrop to suspicions of murder. Next, Hitchcock made two short propaganda films for the war effort that ended up not being released at the time; they were grim espionage tales that didn't necessarily march in step to the message that the producers wanted. Also, they were filmed in French, with English subtitles, and this adds to their inaccessibility; I found them almost unwatchable. 1944's Lifeboat finds Hitchcock back in more familiar territory with yet another World War II story. This film is unique because all of the action takes place on the lifeboat, providing a cinematic challenge that Hitchcock relished. After this are the 3 remaining films that are currently unavailable due to ownership technicalities (here's wishing for a swift resolution to this).

1948's Rope was another unusually filmed project; it employed one take for the entire film. This necessitated that the actors perform their lines like a stage play and the camera would steal away to focus on a doorknob, for instance, when a scene change was required. It was largely successful, though never repeated to such lengths again. Under Capricorn is not known as one of Hitchcock's best; however I found it to be much better than expected. It features Ingrid Bergman in her last appearance in a Hitchcock film, and is worthwhile just for her performance; one of her scenes features a long take a la Rope. Stage Fright was a film that rises above a possible flaw in the plot (I won't give it away), to achieve classic proportions by the end. The supposed drawback is considered revolutionary today, though to Hitchcock himself it was merely a mistake that was discovered too late to rectify. The film also features Marlene Dietrich in a performance that's worth the price of admission.

Strangers on a Train begins a sequence of films during the 1950s where Hitchcock was arguably at his most consistent. I Confess, Dial M for Murder, and Rear Window follow in rapid succession. Rear Window, of course, is one of the greatest films of his career. It combines star power, suspense, and humor in a cumulative effect. This was followed by the lightweight but fun To Catch a Thief, which was Grace Kelly's last film (before marrying the Count of Monaco and giving up acting). It was ahead of its time and reminded me a bit of early James Bond or the Pink Panther films as far as locale and style. The Trouble with Harry was a farce that is more enjoyable the second time around, once you aren't expecting anything serious. The Man Who Knew Too Much was a remake of of the 1934 classic and it stands on its own as a vehicle for Jimmy Stewart. The Wrong Man, with Henry Fonda, was an excellent film noir based on a true story. Vertigo was better than I remembered, perhaps because I expected too much the first go-round. North by Northwest is simply one of Hitchcock's best, the peak of his 50s films both literally and figuratively.

Psycho marks the beginning of a new era for Hitchcock that coincided with the advent of the 1960s. There was a modernity present that wasn't as apparent before. The film stands up well and represents Hitchcock at his absolute pinnacle. It would be difficult to match the dizzying heights that his career reached with this film, and he never was quite able to. Tippi Hedron was Hitchcock's new star and was featured to good effect in his next two films. The Birds was a flawed masterpiece that nevertheless is still one of my favorites; Marnie was a lot better the second time through (Sean Connery is superb). Torn Curtain stood up better than could have been foreseen (Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were wonderful together, in my opinion).

Topaz was disappointing and might win the award for Hitchcock's worst film: the plot is grim and there is no humor or romance to brighten the proceedings. It's overlong and lacks star power to carry it. Frenzy was a return to form, while also a return to England for Hitchcock. Family Plot was his final film, and it was at least successful as a black comedy of sorts, though it can't compare to any of his finest films. It has such a bad reputation that I ended up enjoying it because it wasn't nearly as awful as I feared or remembered; maybe perspective allows us to be more forgiving. Part of what I was trying to do was give each film another chance without the expectations that usually accompanied the initial screening.

I came away from the journey with even more respect for Hitchcock as an artist than I had before, which was substantial. He definitely stands as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, director of all time. His career spanned an unprecedented 6 decades, and bridged the silent, sound, and modern eras. There is not another director that comes close to his level of output on a year after year basis. He never received the kind of recognition he deserved until late in his career, but his legacy will endure for generations to come. I look forward to watching all of these films again over time, and will no doubt find new treasures within them with each new viewing.

Sources:

http://imdb.com/name/nm0000033/

Purple Sky

2007-03-31T23:37:00.000-07:00

Purple Sky Press is the new publishing company that I am launching with the release of my first book. Recaptured Beauty is a book of prose poems tracing every change of the seasons that happened to catch my fancy, beginning with the particularly colorful fall of 1986. I've been revising it for over twenty years, while working on other projects that will also be forthcoming; specifically, short stories and a full-length memoir. Considering my perfectionist nature, it will probably be several years before these other works are ready to publish. In the meantime, there is this offering.

http://purpleskypress.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Recaptured-Beauty-Alan-Lawrence/dp/0977987108/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6081765-4246032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173047347&sr=8-1

The Avengers Again

2007-02-28T23:53:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been rediscovering the British television series The Avengers on DVD. I hadn't seen the show since watching it regularly as a kid. In those days I had been impressed by the atmosphere, imaginative storylines, and flamboyant characters, both in the lead and supporting roles. Seriousness and humor were counterpointed in an intriguing fashion that was to be influential for many other series' to come (i.e. The X-Files). The plots usually revolved around various diabolical masterminds attempting outlandish schemes to take over the world, one English county at a time. It's amazing how many different ways that it could be accomplished, and the entertaining ways each potentially catastrophic situation was resolved by our heroes. Unconventional combat methods were often deployed, such as Karate, Judo, or an umbrella and bowler hat, to defeat their adversaries.

In all, there were 161 episodes of the original series (1961-1969), over six seasons. However, a persuasive argument has been made by aficionados (of which I am becoming one) that there were technically seven seasons, because of wildly varying season lengths, differences between United Kingdom and United States air-dates, a complicated stop and start of production during season five, and the fact that it was first shown in the U.S. as a summer replacement. For the purposes of this article, I'm sticking with the more straightforward six-season count, while acknowledging the points made by the seven-season camp. The DVD sets are released by year, in UK broadcast order, instead of by season, adding to the confusion, or maybe because of it.

I checked out from the library The Avengers '64 vol. 1&2, depicting an earlier incarnation of the show than what I was used to, and was impressed with Honor Blackman as Cathy Gale, John Steed's partner before Emma Peel. These volumes actually represent the end of the Cathy Gale era (in another confusing twist, vols. 3&4 constitute the first half of 1964). The show is basically separated into four eras (Dr. Keel, Cathy Gale, Emma Peel, and Tara King) established by Steed's main counterparts; the debonair Mr. Steed being the only constant. Patrick Macnee (pronounced MACK-knee) as Steed and Diana Rigg as Mrs. Peel were to become the ultimate combination for the series, but what came before and after is superb in its own way.

In the beginning (1960), there was a British television show called Police Surgeon starring Ian Hendry. When it was cancelled after only thirteen episodes, the producers decided to start another series: The Avengers. Hendry played David Keel, a doctor who became interested in fighting crime after his fiance was murdered. He is enlisted by a mysterious government agent, John Steed, to help solve unusual cases, and was occasionally assisted by his nurse Carol Wilson, played by Ingrid Hafner (in a foreshadowing of the female side-kick concept). For many years only one episode, The Frighteners, was known to survive from this 1st season (1961), since in those days programs were videotaped, broadcast, and then taped over or even destroyed, without a thought to posterity. Recently, one other complete episode, The Girl on the Trapeze (the only episode not featuring Steed; you hardly miss him, it's so good), has surfaced along with the first act (22 minutes) of the first episode Hot Snow. These are now available as part of a bonus disc on the Emma Peel megaset or separately if desired. These are excellent examples of early 60's British television, and provide a fascinating introduction to the show.

After an Equity strike cancelled the last half of the 1st season, Hendry decided to take the opportunity to seek other roles, and the show resumed in the Fall of '62 for a second season, now without Dr. Keel. Three episodes originally intended for him were re-written for a Dr. Martin King, played by Jon Rollason. After a short time Honor Blackman was hired to play Mrs. Cathy Gale, a more equal partner for Steed. The producers weren't through experimenting with characters, however; Julie Stevens was hired to play a jazz singer named Venus Smith that assisted Steed for six episodes. It was eventually decided, though, that Honor Blackman as Cathy Gale was the perfect foil for Steed. That's when the series really took off, and the third season ('63-'64) features her as Steed's only counterpart.

All of these early episodes were filmed on videotape in essentially one take, so there are camera and verbal flubs that remain intact, and the productions are generally less sophisticated than what audiences are used to today. Viewed from an historical perspective, however, these inconsistencies are interesting and even humorous, especially compared to the slickness of later years. For instance, the fight scenes were also done in one take without stuntmen; sometimes the action appears a bit perfunctory like a stage play, which the programs often resemble. One startling aspect that was introduced early on, though, was the use of Karate by Mrs. Gale to overcome antagonists, a tactic that set the tone for the duration of the series. This added to the show's appeal, since it was the first to feature a strong female lead that could take care of herself; in fact, she often rescued Steed instead of the other way around. When Blackman decided to leave the show to accept the role of Pussy Galore in the James Bond thriller Goldfinger, the search was started for a replacement; a difficult task.

At this same time American television producers had begun taking an interest, and offered to broadcast the show in America while substantially increasing its budget. Originally, Elizabeth Shepherd was signed for the part of Emma Peel, but after only two episodes it was decided that she was unsuitable. On a lark, actress Diana Rigg decided to audition for the role. The chemistry between her and Patrick Macnee was evident from the beginning, and some of the early episodes featuring them together are among the best of the entire series. The two seasons featuring Emma Peel clearly represent the epitome of The Avengers. She was as strong as Cathy Gale (and just as good at Karate), but a bit less contentious with Steed. Their friendship was more open-ended than previous eras allowed, and their banter more scintillating.

The fourth season ('65-'66) was shot in black and white, but film had replaced videotape; the fifth season ('66-'67) was filmed entirely in color. After awhile, Diana Rigg became fed up with the increasingly bizarre scripts and this, combined with a contract dispute, caused her to ask to leave the show midway through her second season. When both the show and Rigg were nominated for Emmys, she was offered a raise and agreed to finish the season. After that she joined Honor Blackman as Avengers alumni who went on to take roles as Bond girls, this time as Tracy Di Vincenzio in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Since then she has continued her illustrious career on both the stage and screen.

Linda Thorson was brought in to play Tara King, a slightly different kind of partner for Steed. For instance, whereas Cathy and Emma were flirty yet undefinedly platonic in their relations with him, Tara was decidedly in love with Steed. This created a nice balance between the eras. In the early to mid-sixties it was believed that, after a solid period of mourning, widows were potentially more available than women that were still blatantly single; thus we have Mrs. Gale and Mrs. Peel. This allowed Steed to flirt with other females in the show while still leaving the possibility open that something could develop with his compatriots. It also left Mrs. Gale and Mrs. Peel considerable leeway in their various encounters with other men. By the time Tara King made the scene, female roles were liberalized and women had more freedom to pursue relationships on their own terms.

This new incarnation only lasted one season, however, because of several factors. In the first place replacing Diana Rigg was no easy task; in the second, the scripts became more and more far-fetched, almost to the point of the show spoofing itself; and thirdly the show was scheduled opposite Laugh In, also one of the most popular shows at that time. Season six ('68- '69) happens to be the most dated of the later seasons, partly because of the quirkiness (even for this show) of the late-sixties plots, but also because of the many hairstyle changes endured by Thorson when the dye she used to become platinum blond for the program caused her hair to fall out, forcing her to wear various wigs until her natural locks returned. This last season was also filmed in color (as was most television by then), and it had its charms despite its problems. Some of the scripts were actually some of the best ever written for the show, and Tara was really beginning to come into her own. The final season of The Avengers came to a close in the Spring of 1969. In the last episode, Tara King and John Steed blast off together in a rocketship at the end, a fitting finish for a show that took the basic crime and espionage format to extraordinary heights.

Sources:

http://theavengers.tv/

http://theavengers.tv/forever/

http://theavengers.tv/forever/guide.htm

http://theavengers.tv/forever/timeline.htm

Revolving Treadmill

2007-01-31T23:25:00.000-08:00

It seems like we are on a revolving treadmill like on the closing credits of the old Jetsons TV show. News stories that we knew about years ago are just now reaching the mainstream media as though nobody was aware of them before. Big news, folks: Vice President Dick Cheney may have been involved in the Valerie Plame leak. As though we're all dense or so distracted that we didn't understand this from the beginning. Remarkably, this is even a retread from the "news" about six months ago. There are revelations almost every day that just confirm what was already known from other sources a long time ago. Meanwhile, the real story, that the Bush administration lied us into the war in Iraq, is apparently just an obligatory side-issue.

President Bush is now moving towards another war, this time with Iran, and the media is helping him to the point of suggesting that it might happen "accidentally." Woops! We started World War 3. The unasked question seems to be: How will this affect the 24 hour news cycle? Will we be able to continue going shopping as though nothing was awry? Don't worry, corporations are making record profits; the economy is doing great they say. Forget about poverty, it's just not sexy; though talking about it may help if you're running for president. Just keep watching television and consuming junk food to the point of oblivion.

There are positive messages coming from the new Congress and from Democratic candidates in an unprecedented early start to the presidential race. The diversity of the field is encouraging and I find myself excited by the three front-runners, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, though they each face varying degrees of opposition from within their own party. With choices like these there may be a chance to turn America around before it's too late, though the task is daunting, with more challenges to come. Two years is a long time for a lame-duck president trying to solidify a tattered legacy. At least the issues are being debated fully for the first time, and it's possible some of the damage might be mitigated. We must cling to this hope as we attempt to survive the most disastrous president in U.S. history.

A massive march on Washington occurred on Jan. 27th that exemplified the possibilities inherent in a movement away from greed and war towards understanding and peace with our "enemies" worldwide. Early press reports indicated "tens of thousands" of protesters descending on the Capital, and even though the crowd was eventually estimated at approximately 300,000 or more (by the organizers at least), the figures were never updated and they kept showing the same cropped pictures as if to say it was just a relatively small group of dissatisfied customers, albeit with big names like Sean Penn and Jane Fonda. It was nice that the event was covered at all, though it was probably a combination of the celebrity factor, and the fact that Congress is actually mulling a resolution expressing opposition to the escalation in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people protesting the war is being considered somewhat newsworthy for a change; non-reportage of the true numbers notwithstanding.

If Bush now insists on starting a war with Iran, talk of impeachment will increase, though he may gamble that Americans wouldn't be able to stomach such an upheaval during "wartime." Ironically, the final straw needed to convince Congress of the necessity of removing Bush and Cheney from office may preclude their very removal. "World War 3 can't wait for impeachment hearings to take place," they will shriek. Consequently, steps must be taken now to weaken the administration before their plans become irrevocable. Even if Congress doesn't have the votes at the moment to prevail in an impeachment proceeding, they are required by the Constitution of the United States to introduce this remedy anyway, and follow the investigation wherever it leads. The future of the nation and the world is at stake, and that should be enough of a reason to seek accountability from our government.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0129-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0128-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0127-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0126-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0126-25.htm

Dirty Slate

2006-12-31T23:52:00.000-08:00

We have a chance to unveil a new direction in the coming year, but we face what may be among the toughest obstacles ever faced by a Congress in power. President Bush and his cronies are determined to fight the Democrats in every way possible, and their partisanship has no rival in American history. The calls for bi-partisanship from the President only mean that he wants his critics to capitulate to his plans; he's certainly not going to budge in the slightest. In the past, this has been portrayed by the media as a position of strength, but in this case it's a sinking life raft and he's taking the rest of the country down with him. We can expect vetoes of virtually all legislation, along with outlandish provocation designed to bemuse us into accepting arduously obtained tidbits. Token bills will be passed that fall far short of the meaningful progress voters indicated they wanted last November.

Our Christmas and New Years' celebrations were tainted by the rush to hang Saddam Hussein, in a travesty of justice that we were taught in grade school only occurred under totalitarian regimes. It's true that the man did deserve punishment, but it should have been delivered by an international court if it was to have legitimacy. A trial like this could never occur in the United States, because we would have assured that he had an impartial jury and location. Oh, I forgot, except that now anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" can be tried by military tribunals under the same farcical conditions as the Iraqi court. It was the Bush administration that insisted that Saddam be tried in Iraq (in our own Green Zone, of course) instead of by the International Criminal Court; the ICC doesn't allow the death penalty, and the U.S. has withdrawn from its jurisdiction anyway.

It's obvious that a speedy execution is the result that our government wanted from the beginning. There was never any doubt what the verdict would be. Factions in Iraq have always wanted their revenge against Saddam, and this fit well with our plan to silence him before any more could be revealed about U.S. complicity in his crimes. The next trial could have brought to light inconvenient details about the U.S. arming of Iraq during the Iran war, and even our involvement in the gassing of the Kurds. We claimed at the time that it was the Iranians who were responsible for the attacks; it appears now to be an attempt to explain the event away. On the other hand, there are reports that this might be a correct assessment after all, thereby nullifying one of the main charges of both the prosecution and the Bush administration's propaganda machine. A serious investigation of this incident would have exposed uncomfortable truths that the U.S. wanted suppressed. In any case, we can't ignore the fact that the chemical weapons allegedly used by Saddam were supplied by us, with our approval. Our government was arming the Iraqi military for many years in a failed attempt to solve the perceived Iran problem.

When Saddam became resistant to providing us with all the oil we wanted, we gave him the "green light" to invade Kuwait, and then used that as an excuse to start the first Gulf War. It should be understood that Kuwait was part of Iraq until it was sectioned off as part of the British empire, and that the current regime was using U.S. equipment to slant drill under the border in order to siphon off Iraqi oil. After pushing Saddam's forces back into Iraq, we declared victory, and then proceeded to starve the Iraqi people for twelve years with the "oil for food" sanctions. In the autumn of 2000, Saddam threatened to switch to euros instead of dollars as a standard for monetary exchange and thus make it harder for the U.S. to plunder huge profits from oil sales. This was the last straw for the forces in the new Bush administration who were determined to oust him; well before their false excuse of 9/11. After the invasion of Iraq, one of the first acts of the U.S. installed government was to revert back to a dollars-based system.

It's a shame that the citizens of Iraq have had to suffer so grievously because American oil interests embedded in our government acted illegally and invaded a sovereign nation while essentially assassinating their leader. Apparently, the secrets Saddam held could not be allowed to be recited in the semblance of an open courtroom (such as it was). Saddam Hussein was installed into power by us, and by not stopping this rush to execution we have now lowered ourselves to the level of atrocities we purport to abhor. Our audacity cannot be undone, and the beginning of a new year isn't enough to erase the sin.

Lost in the shuffle is the landmark 3000th death of U.S. military forces in Iraq; perhaps this was another reason to expedite the hanging. Maybe they thought the numerous deaths would look better in the light of one high-profile death for "crimes against humanity," particularly since it was supposedly to rid Iraq of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" that we invaded their country in the first place. Considering the gullibility of the American public, they may have been right in their calculation.

It probably doesn't bother George W. Bush that our holiday celebrations were overcome by a savage, barbaric act that we refused to stop because we ourselves instigated it. The President could spend time on his ranch and then mourn former President Ford's passing, while downplaying what should have been his gleeful "victory." In the next weeks, a new Congress will begin to sift through the hubris and will face a belligerent executive determined to press forward with his scorched-earth agenda. Instead of scaling down troop levels, Bush wants to increase them; whether he gets his "surge" or not, he will at least get to maintain current numbers, and that's part of his goal.

It remains to be seen whether Congress will have the guts to pull the funding for this misadventure. Perhaps if those representing Iraq will just sign over all the oil contracts to U.S. companies, our troops can withdraw. Wait, that's exactly what they are in the process of arranging. Of course, we will need half our current forces operating from permanent bases to forever protect the booty. That's the real reason behind this fiasco: to establish a long-term U.S. presence in the Middle East, thus securing the natural resources we believe we so desperately need. A better option would be to sign a peace treaty with the countries involved, and help with the development of wind, solar, and bio-mass energy sources world-wide. It may be the only way to avert an unsolvable crisis, but time is running out.

We can be thankful that at least we don't have a rubber stamp Congress anymore, and perhaps the most disastrous legislation won't get passed this year. There is a looming presidential race that the media won't let us forget about, though heaven knows we need to be thinking about a new president as soon as possible. Meanwhile, restraining President Bush is the most daunting task before the American people. If we can get through the next year without starting another war, I guess we can call that a success.

Happy New Year!

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0106-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0108-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0107-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0103-61.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0103-60.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0103-56.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0104-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0104-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1231-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1230-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1230-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1230-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1230-26.htm

http://consortiumnews.com/2003/022703a.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/123106D.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/123106A.shtml

Sore Winners

2006-11-30T23:58:00.000-08:00

On election night hope was restored, and by the next evening, many were giddy with the news that the Democrats had taken not only the House of Representatives but the Senate as well, albeit by as slim a margin as possible. I've never been so deliciously wrong in my predictions. For the first time in twelve years, Democrats have a majority in the House and will chair committees and field inquiries. However, before we celebrate too much, we must consider the daunting task ahead of us. We face the most belligerent administration perhaps in history, outdoing even the disastrous Nixon administration. We can't expect to be given legislative victories, and any failure to break down the edifice will be used as ammunition against us.

We also can't be complacent about the election system in this country, just because we were able to overcome all the obstacles thrown in our way this time. The unadjusted exit polls actually projected a much larger margin of victory for Democrats than the final tally showed. Time spent looking into this too closely could get us accused of being sore winners, but nothing less than the integrity of future elections depends on it. There is evidence that 20% of the methods used to vote failed, and this was actually stated as a positive: 80% of our voting system worked! This shouldn't be acceptable in a true democracy, and would be considered sub-standard in a third-world country.

Some states have still not settled their elections, especially Florida, where 18,000 votes were lost by the electronic voting machines, in a race settled by 369 votes. A recount isn't possible because there is no paper trail; the Democrat, Christine Jennings, is calling for a new election as the only fair way to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, there would need to be a whole new voting system in place first. With all the supposed technology we have at our disposal it should be possible, but going by past experience in Florida, we can't expect much. This is, after all, the House seat vacated by Katherine Harris of 2000 election debacle infamy.

Many opinions have been expressed about a change of course in Iraq, although the best newly-empowered Democrats seem to be able to offer is a "phased" withdrawal beginning in 4-6 months. This is a dangerous plan that echoes the campaign promises of President Nixon during the Vietnam War that ultimately led to a full retreat after thousands more died. If saving lives in both the short and long term is the goal, the only realistic solution is for a complete withdrawal of U. S. Military forces from Iraq as quickly as possible. The length of time it would take to fly our soldiers home is the only phased withdrawal we need. If President Bush doesn't want to set a timetable, then he should just make a surprise decision to "redeploy" (for lack of a better term) immediately. Bush would have to face "defeat" of his plans to transform the Middle East in his image, but he could mitigate the damage by having the courage to admit his tragic mistake. It would be astonishing coming from him, but stranger things have happened (like the Dems retaking Congress in the face of a thorough Republican takeover of our democracy). Unfortunately, it is quite unlikely we will see any progress, because the Bush administration never plans on leaving Iraq; it's part of their ill-advised plan to control Middle Eastern oil and natural gas reserves with permanent bases.

There is only one remedy to this problem. A lot of opinions are being bandied back and forth about whether the new Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I think it's telling that the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was forced to state that impeachment was "off the table." That this was even reported is in itself an admission by the mainstream press that it is an issue that should be taken seriously. It is at least diplomatic of her, and of new House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, to not sound the battle cry before they are sworn in. Then there is the question of whether enough time remains for impeachment hearings before the run-up to the 2008 elections. It should be remembered that the Republicans succeeded in getting an impeachment trial involving President Clinton started and completed in 5 months. Of course, the circumstances are much different now, and the charges against Bush and Cheney, et al., are much more involved; the world situation is also more dire, ironically because of those needing impeachment. The sheer magnitude of the crimes committed by this administration daunt the ability to provide oversight. Investigations must be thorough, and since they haven't even officially begun yet, it's truly doubtful they could be completed before Bush's term skids to an end anyway. The chips should fall where they may, however, and it is Congress' duty to hold the executive branch accountable. The administration shouldn't be allowed to simply run out the clock, though it seems quite likely that they will, at least, succeed in accomplishing this ignominious goal.

We can try to think positively, and indeed it's necessary, as we face the nearly insurmountable challenges ahead. Not only the United States, but the world is in a predicament that is completely unprecedented. We must move quickly to embrace policies that preserve both security and the Constitution. Habeas Corpus must be restored as soon as practicable and we must re-join Geneva Convention guidelines on torture. This would be a beginning towards mending the rifts our government has fostered both nationally and internationally, but it needs to start immediately. The clash for resources combined with the threat of global warming present us with dwindling opportunities for course correction. For instance, there is a chance now for a shift towards renewable energy, but time is running out on implementing the necessary changes. Our natural heritage can still be preserved while attaining new standards in solar, wind, and biomass technology. We've made a crucial step in the right direction with these congressional elections. Let's not squander the clear voice of the people backing our endeavors. A bright future is still possible, but we must build on these small victories until a consensus can be reached that everyone regardless of political persuasion can agree on.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1128-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1128-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1126-07.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1126-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1118-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1119-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1117-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1117-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1115-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1115-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1114-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1114-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1112-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1112-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1110-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061117_clear_evidence_2006_.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006112300965.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Halloween Special

2006-10-31T23:15:00.000-08:00

Over the last month or so I've been watching the Universal Pictures productions of Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Mummy, and The Invisible Man. The Legacy Collection on DVD includes all the original classics plus the sequels produced in the thirties and forties. Though the follow-ups are generally weaker than the originals, most of them hold up quite well; some even managing to equal or surpass their predecessors, at least as entertainment. Hollywood really knew how to make movies consistently back then; the sets were always stunning and the actors were seasoned professionals.

I'm particularly impressed overall with The Invisible Man series, based on the novel by H.G. Wells. The first movie, with Claude Raines, has wonderful special effects for a film made in 1933. The second one, with Vincent Price, is a marvelous blend of horror and the comedic. The third installment, The Invisible Woman, stars John Barrymore as the scientist; it's an intentional comedy and remarkably successful.

The Frankenstein series is also very consistent. The first two, Frankenstein, and Bride of Frankenstein, are among the greatest of the genre, and subsequent entries such as Son of Frankenstein, and Ghost of Frankenstein are worthy of their subjects. The Dracula series is more uneven, though Dracula's Daughter is a fascinating recreation of the legend. Bela Lugosi is a hard act to follow as the quintessential Dracula in the original. The Mummy stars Boris Karloff, of course, and affords us a chance to almost see what he (Karloff) actually looks like, during the mummy's modern incarnation. The rest of The Mummy series can only pale in comparison. The Wolf Man series begins with Werewolf of London in 1935 and peaks with the 1941 title version with Lon Chaney Jr.

Tonight I watched The Wolf Man Meets Frankenstein, a sort of sequel to The Wolf Man, that stars both Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi. It's a romp! I've enjoyed this Halloween very much and look forward to eventually seeing the rest of the films in each of the series'. This October I also had the pleasure of reading Dracula by Bram Stoker, a classic Victorian novel that has no equal for its type. Earlier in the year I read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, a fascinating example of early Nineteenth century writing. Both novels are landmarks and should be on any serious lifetime reading list.

Happy Halloween!

Serious Biz

2006-09-30T23:47:00.000-07:00

We've reached a critical turning point in America and if our course is not changed now it will be too late to shift directions. The coming Congressional elections will decide if one-party rule headed by the Republicans is set in stone or just an aberration. Unfortunately, since the party in power controls the voting machines and key Secretary of State positions, the people will again have no real voice. Our only hope is to expose deceptions as they occur, and even then our chances of publicizing the truth are limited by the mainstream media also controlled by corporations beholden to the White House. If we're not vigilant, the Republicans might not only retain both Houses of Congress, but gain the five seats in the Senate that they need to shut off all debate. That's the direction we're heading and quickly; they're looking for a way to solidify their complete stranglehold on government, now tantalizingly within reach. It's inconceivable that they would allow this opportunity to go unexploited.

Congress has just approved giving President Bush all the power he needs to finish shredding what remains of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. We're on the proverbial slippery slope where another attack on the U. S. would give the administration all the excuse it needs to impose its will on the people. The failure to protect us wouldn't matter at that point: they already know they can do whatever they want. It's not sheer incompetence guiding all of this, but a carefully calculated plan crafted back in the 1990's called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It includes the infamous report that proclaimed that it would be difficult to achieve their objectives "absent some catastrophic and catalysing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." Most of the architects of the project are currently members of the Bush administration; chiefly Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The fiasco in Iraq isn't a mistake, but part of the plan to establish permanent bases on the way to dominating the Middle East, and thus the worldwide oil markets. They are setting the stage for an overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran that has been their goal from the beginning.

Our last chance to stop this cabal that has taken over our government is upon us. It's hard to feel confident considering three straight stolen elections nationwide: 2000, 2003, and 2004. All of the decisions affecting the world to such a dangerous degree were made by officials that can't prove they were legitimately elected. The machines 80% of Americans are voting on have been proven to be easily hackable, and are being approved without independent certification. Paper ballots, at least as back-ups in case of the inevitable machine malfunction, or to provide a paper-trail in the unlikely event of a recount, have not yet been upheld as mandatory. Consequently, since this year's election is bound to be in doubt because of the lack of basic protections built into the system, we must be prepared to challenge the results; it would be even better if we could expose the ruse once and for all. Barring that, we are in for a rough ride the next few years as we are forced to submit to a right-wing dictatorship in sheep's clothing that wasn't democratically elected.

National mail-in elections are the best solution to all of this; it has worked in Oregon for many years without a glitch. Instead, Republicans are attempting to institute a requirement that voters present an I.D. card at the voting place as proof of citizenship that would place even Oregon's method in jeopardy. It is claimed that we need Voter I.D. to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, when such cases are so few as to be practically non-existent. This is just another red herring to distract us from the fraud they are perpetuating on the American people to keep themselves in office. Many citizens don't have the I.D. that would be mandated and would be effectively disenfranchised. Even if people had the right I.D., imagine this wrinkle added to the long lines in Ohio in 2004 that benefited the party in power, and it's obvious why they support this further obstacle. This wouldn't go into effect until 2008, but we can count on every other form of voter intimidation to occur in the meantime. It will actually be a surprise if the election goes smoothly in November and the Democrats win big as the media so far claims they should. However, it's imperative for the sake of the country and the rest of the world that a semblance of balance is finally restored.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0925-35.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0930-21.htm

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/videos.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092106R.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060106R.shtml

Combating Ennui

2006-08-31T23:54:00.000-07:00

We are approaching another crossroad in the American experiment in democracy. The last chance to slow the momentum of the neo-conservatives controlling every facet of government is around the corner in November. Only a Democratic Congress can provide the oversight required to tame the Bush administration's reckless policies. It is not sheer negligence and incompetence that we must overcome, but a fundamental arrogance of power that is hell-bent on achieving its goals of establishing an American empire in the Middle East as the centerpiece of global domination based on oil. That's why we're in Iraq and threatening Iran; it has nothing to do with terrorism. If anything, these actions have increased the threat of terrorism worldwide. The fear-mongering will undoubtedly reach a fever pitch as the 5th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, combined with a crucial election nearing that could spell accountability.

An extremest right-wing ideology has become deeply rooted in our government, and it is not in the best interests of the country as a whole. Unfortunately, those in power really believe the rhetoric they recite, and apparently there is nothing we do can stop them. This has caused a deep cynicism to develop, amounting to a frustration that simply cannot be soothed by conventional or even unconventional means, outside of impeachment. When our right to vote is jeopardized by outright intimidation combined with unreliable and hackable electronic voting, the people become powerless to effect necessary change. Transparency in the election system is absent, and we can't be sure our vote truly counts anymore. For instance, Ohio's votes in the last Presidential election have still not been fully counted or audited, and the announced results have never been verified.

Federal law allows, but doesn't require, the destruction of federal ballots 22 months after election day. Florida, in an appropriate example, chose to house the 2000 ballots in a museum, after the press counted them and found that Al Gore would have won a full recount. As of Sept. 3rd, though, the state of Ohio can legally discard all the ballots from 2004 if it chooses, and Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, chairman of George Bush's re-election committee in Ohio, is poised to destroy all the evidence that might expose any malfeasance. Once this happens, the coup will be complete, if it isn't already. We aren't expecting to overturn the results at this late date anyway; we just want to prevent these problems from recurring in the future. Thankfully, a last minute reprieve has rescued the will of the people for a few precious months; at least until a lawsuit can be settled (or the current election is over). That Blackwell is actually on the ballot as the Republican candidate for governor this year while still managing the election is a perfect example of the conflicts of interest that have become commonplace.

It will be hard to carry on against this juggernaut, but the Democrats still have a chance if they are careful to scrutinize the vote this time, and are willing to expose the faults in the system when it malfunctions. The mainstream press must also perform its duty as a watchdog; though if it did, it would be the first time in nearly a decade that it has done so meaningfully. The decline can be traced to the Clinton impeachment farce leading into the 2000 election. We can't expect a corporate-controlled media to allow true democracy to flower, so we should brace ourselves for more dark years to come. Even if the Bush administration can somehow be stopped from implementing its plans, the destruction they have already perpetuated will haunt us for decades. Maybe a new Congress can begin rebuilding the country in the image the forefathers originally envisioned. Our hope lies there, and all we can do is reach for it again with all the confidence we can muster.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0831-06.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0831-31.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0831-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0831-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0829-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0829-36.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-20.htm

Convenient Disaster

2006-07-31T23:55:00.000-07:00

We now have new hostilities brewing in the Middle East, thanks to a continuation of U.S. and Israeli policies that will never solve the problems of the region. This "recent" crisis has actually been planned for over a year, and has its roots in events occurring five years ago (after Israel ended its occupation of Southern Lebanon in 2000). The taking of two Israeli hostages by Hezbollah is just the excuse they were looking for so they could launch the offensive. It's convenient for President Bush since it distracts from Iraq and pressing domestic problems at home while refocusing attention onto supposed military solutions to every foreign policy decision we face. It also provides a timely boost for Republicans facing an angry electorate this fall in the congressional elections. Though they control the voting machines and are poised to use every trick they can get away with to secure the election, they need another war in order to plausibly claim victory.

A hidden side to the current conflict in Lebanon is the increased violence occurring in Gaza directed at the Palestinians. This crucial aspect will never be solved without the creation of a Palestinian state and the subsequent recognition of Israel's right to exist. A full-fledged war is certainly not the way to accomplish such a resolution. It appeared for a time that peace was finally possible, but events have assured the tenuousness of any ceasefire. That doesn't mean that we should stop calling for a cessation of hostilities until it can be lasting as the administration suggests. A continuation of the assault on Lebanon and Gaza will only delay an end to the destruction it claims to be responding to. It's time for the U.S. to show the kind of diplomacy that the Bush administration has repeatedly shown it is incapable of. Instead, this administration seems hell-bent on another major war to help it achieve its still unfinished goals. It's clear that they would actually welcome another World War, thus solidifying George W.'s "War President" legacy.

All of this is part of the plan to eventually engage Iran and Syria in a fight for control of the Middle East. Already the mainstream media has been touting allegations that Iran might be behind some of the terrorism directed at Israel. Headlines have been planted everywhere in the press in an effort to convince the public that action is necessary to eliminate the threat. Of course, the threat can never be completely eliminated and any military force used against Iran in particular will only exacerbate tensions. Unfortunately for us, any escalation plays into the Bush administration's hands and will just give them all the justification they think they need to prove their case that war is necessary to the American people and the world. The majority won't buy it, but that won't matter to the crowd in charge; they feel they can do whatever they want with impunity. Those in favor of a peaceful, diplomatic approach can expect to be shunted aside and derided as unpatriotic weaklings.

A new vision is needed and our best chance is to elect a Democratic majority to Congress this November. It will be a difficult task, since the cards are stacked against us, but we must do everything in our power to make it a reality. And if another election is stolen, maybe this time we will be able to prove it. It's sad that we're already grasping at straws, even as the future of the country and the world is at stake. Let's unite in a common belief in the principles our nation was founded on and show that the American people are stronger than one political party's tactics. All the people of the world depend on a change of course, whether they realize it or not. We must rise above partisanship and seek a higher ideal that can prevail over tyranny and deliver lasting peace not just to our allies but to our so-called enemies as well. Only then can the promise of a true community of nations be fulfilled.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0731-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0731-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0731-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0731-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0730-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0729-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0730-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0729-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0729-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0727-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0727-32.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0726-30.htm

Election Imperative

2006-06-30T23:43:00.000-07:00

The nation is heading for a watershed election and we still have unverifiable voting machines in place and voter intimidation tactics kicking into full gear. In this chaotic environment it is unclear whether the will of the people will be heard or if these sort of shenanigans will again be allowed to effect the results. It is unconscionable that in this day and age we should still not be sure that our votes are being counted as cast. It is said repeatedly by pundits and others that it can't be proved that our elections are being stolen, and yet the absence of proof that the system is transparent is the exact cause for the failure. The onus should be on the government to guarantee that elections are fair and not on its constituents. Voters must have complete confidence in the tallying system, and that can only be obtained by removing private firms from the process and reinstituting public ownership.

If we are to accomplish what they say we cannot, we need to retrieve all relevant data from myriad sources. Immediate action is imperative because the voting machines used in the 2004 presidential elections can be legally wiped clean this November, thus destroying much of the hard evidence forever. The machines are currently locked down, but all of their information needs to be transferred to permanent storage mediums, and then accessed to finally determine if they were tampered with or not. This should be standard proceedure under any circumstances, just for security purposes. Besides the "losers" right to surety in defeat, you would think that the "winners" would want irrefutable proof that they won, too. Of course, in this case, there is no way to calculate the effect of rampant suppression of the minority vote, including the shortage of voting machines in heavily Democratic precincts that created unprecedented lines producing waits averaging three hours or more. Anyone who was there or has seen the video footage of Ohio cannot doubt that democracy was subverted.

A combination of old-fashioned voter-roll purging, unprecedented chaos (Florida 2000 notwithstanding), and recent touch-screen technology has allowed the manipulation of the inalienable right entrenched in the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act to vote for the candidates of our choice. The introduction of so-called "provisional" ballots that are often not even counted until after the winner has been "decided" has disturbed the basic ritual of election day. No registered voter should have to vote provisionally in the United States of America or anywhere on Earth for that matter. It's a disgrace that in 2004 there were over 100,000 of them in Ohio (nearly the difference in the race) that had to be held for a waiting period of 12 days before counting, while John Kerry was forced to concede. This kind of travesty needs to be rectified immediately. Additionally, there are credible reports of votes switching from one candidate to another electronically right before the eyes of the voters (all in one direction, by the way). These tactics should simply be unacceptable no matter which party benefits.

It is impossible to reverse the damage that has already been done in our name both domestically and on the world stage under such egregiously false pretenses. However, we can still attempt to halt the dissolution of our republic before any further crimes are committed. The problems are so pervasive, though, that it's difficult to know where to begin fixing them. A full investigation by Congress complete with hearings would be a start, but there has been a reluctance to review the 2004 election not only by those in the Republican majority, but by many Democrats as well. The scandal if the truth were really to come out would be devastating to the reputation of our country as a beacon of fairness and liberty; maybe that's why there has been so little political will to address the issue. However, even if politicians don't want to expose the theft of our democracy, they should at least move to eliminate the threat before it proceeds any further.

The only equitable solution to this ongoing disaster is to implement mail-in elections nationwide. This would shatter the monopoly of private companies profiting from the decimation of our election system and restore voter confidence at the same time. Mail-in voting has been employed exclusively in Oregon for many years now without a glitch. There is an instant paper-trail in case a recount is required due to a tight race, and the pitfalls of electronic voting are avoided entirely. Also, there are no long lines to encounter, and absentee or provisional ballot controversies become non-existent. Many special interests don't want a fair system and will resist such a plan with all the money at their disposal; they must be ignored. Nothing less than the American experiment itself is at stake, and along with it, the fate of the rest of the world.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0621-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0626-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0629-31.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0701-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0704-27.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006D.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062006P.shtml

Nuclear Standoff

2006-05-31T23:30:00.000-07:00

A major event occurred a couple weeks ago in Oregon that received little national coverage. It's not surprising, since it concerns a topic that the corporate media wants to keep under wraps. On May 21, 2006, the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant had its cooling tower successfully imploded in the largest demolition of its kind ever attempted. This plant was decommissioned thirteen years ago after a steam generator tube leaked radioactive water just a week after the third attempt to close it was defeated at the ballot box. The public was stuck with the bill in a decision that was eventually reversed in a victory for rate-payers, but only after they were tagged for the original cost and more. In fact, customers are still paying for it while the ruling is being appealed.

Nuclear power has long since reached its nadir in this country, yet the Bush administration appears hell-bent on reinvigorating it, while at the same time insisting that nations like Iran desist from all such activity. If our government truly wants disarmament, then why not suggest that Iran invest in solar and wind energy instead and offer to help implement them. We could halt our own plans to build twelve new nuclear plants in the United States due to go online in 2014 as a show of good faith. The world might stop calling us hypocrites on this issue and we would be honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that we signed. No weapons can be constructed from these resources, and the power derived can be renewed indefinitely without harming the environment.

In typical fashion, the administration uses the crisis it has itself denied and exacerbated in order to achieve its goals. Pollution caused by fossil fuels and the refusal to combat it are behind the current push for nuclear power. A headlong rush backwards that they believe is progress is depriving innocent people of a chance to live in an uncontaminated world, and its being done for short-term financial gain. The argument that safer nuclear plants can be constructed ignores the essentially permanent toxic-waste problem that has never been solved. Strong condemnation of this destructive course is imperative to protect the viability of the planet. Conservation and alternative sources must be combined to ensure an equitable balance between needs and sustainability.

Both the U.S. and Great Britain have an opportunity to lead here and regain some of the respect they have lost in the last five years among the international community. However, it is unlikely that significant progress can be made while the current president and prime minister, respectively, are still in power. The world needs leaders who are willing to move beyond the previous paradigm and create a new vision consisting of constructive solutions. Failure to accomplish this will have catastrophic effects on the future of mankind, as already evidenced by the proven fact of global warming. Increasing natural disasters threaten the survival of all living things on Earth. Only by working together can we achieve the common goal of restoring the unity that peaceful co-existence with nature promises.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/21/oregon.nukeplantimplosion.ap/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0531-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0531-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0531-10.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/photogalleries/localnews1240/1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Iran Again

2006-04-30T23:04:00.000-07:00

The rattling of sabers has intensified, leaving little doubt that President Bush will ignore the United Nations if they don't go along with the push for a war with Iran. An artificial demand for Iran to renounce all nuclear ambitions threatens to increase tensions unnecessarily, because the call for sanctions goes beyond the reach of treaties signed in good faith. The United States needs to tone down their rhetoric if they truly want a peaceful solution, otherwise they are the ones that should be referred to the U.N. Security Council. Recent bluster from President Ahmadinejad of Iran is not the same as an attack on America and does not require a military response. A preemptive strike is still illegal under international law and even if we succeed is eliminating Iran's current nuclear capabilities, retaliation in the form of real terror could destabilize the whole world.

Ahmadinejad has not helped the situation by continuing to make wild threats, but apparently he has been misquoted with an inaccurate translation of his ubiquitous remark that "Israel be wiped off the map." The actual quote is more like "the occupation regime" must "vanish." Nearly every report in the corporate media includes this misinterpretation, along with giving the false impression that Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. No wonder many Americans think Iran is an immediate threat, though they are five or ten years away from having the capability of producing a bomb. In fact, they have actually called for a nuclear weapon freeze in the Middle East.

The truth is that Iran is not in violation of the treaty; domestic nuclear power is allowed under its guidelines. It is the United States and some of our allies that are in violation; Israel has refused to even sign it. America has a right to protect itself and its allies, but not to initiate war, especially without proof of a threat. We already saw the results of this dogma in Iraq; the world couldn't withstand a rerun. Even if we don't like it, Iran has the right to pursue limited nuclear power for civilian use as long as they agree to resume inspections in order to prove peaceful intentions. They have made this offer, but it has already been rejected out of hand by the U.S. ambassador; so much for diplomacy.

Denying Iran this chance would set a precedent for withdrawal from the treaty itself. Maybe that's what the Bush administration wants in order to have an excuse for invasion. Acquiring Iran's oil and natural gas has long been part of the neo-conservative plan, hatched even before the "election" in 2000. But the moment they start to achieve their goals it would become a free-for-all with no solution, except endless destruction. If the U.S. will not back down, World War 3 is imminent. Russia and China would take sides, and the battle for resources would begin. The only alternative is a recognition of our mutual goals and the search for other solutions.

The so-called mainstream media is apparently oblivious to the irony (or insanity) of using nuclear weapons to eliminate another countries nuclear facilities. They also never mention the fact that these "tactical warheads" or "mini-nukes" the U.S. is prepared to use in a strike on Iran are illegal under international and domestic law. Research was approved but not the building of these weapons in 2003. If the administration has implemented the construction of these bombs, then they are violating a law established by Congress. Of course they have shown that they believe laws and the Constitution itself are to be swept aside if need be. This position is beyond the scope of executive power and needs to be reined in before anymore damage is done.

Nuclear power would be better left alone in favor of solar and wind, but if it is contemplated against all advice, it must be safeguarded and the U.S. needs to be the leader here. Unfortunately, America may need a regime change before a sane energy policy can be formed. Misuse of the military as the answer for everything needs to stop, and international relations repaired. Careful diplomacy is not the strong point of the current administration, and the world is worse off for it. The mid-term Congressional elections can't come soon enough to begin providing a check on an out of control executive branch. The absurdity of unreliable and hackable voting machines must be overcome, of course, but for now an election where Democrats are expected to win is our best hope for change. Maybe the rest of the nation will come to their senses soon enough to avert another war, because it's in the best interests of the U.S. and the world.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0502-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0501-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0430-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0430-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0429-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0428-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0419-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0419-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0419-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0419-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0419-06.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0417-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0416-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0414-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0414-31.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0413-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0413-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0412-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0411-31.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0410-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-20.htm

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002383107

http://www.greeninstitute.net/press.asp?rls_id=320&cat_id=41

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024220.200.html

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/04/19/notes041906.DTL&nl=fix

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-14-iran-nukes_x.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

Censure Resolution

2006-03-31T22:01:00.000-08:00

Senator Russ Feingold's introduction of a censure resolution to Congress is remarkable for the press it got, considering that Rep. John Conyers called for similar action in the House of Representatives last year to little fanfare. It seems the possibility Feingold might run for president in 2008 makes this news, even as his critics accuse him of grandstanding to get attention for just such an endeavor. Many Democrats are distancing themselves from taking a stand against President Bush's alleged illegal activities for fear of being labeled "weak on terror," or are cautious of election-year dynamics. They are forgetting that it's Congress' job to provide oversight of the president, and this duty is abrogated if any of these excuses are used. Republican cries of partisanship are particularly specious, considering the partisan nature of nearly every proposal they make.

The truth is that Sen. Feingold is right, the laws regarding surveillance has obviously been broken; it's only a matter of to what extent. The so-called "investigation" into finding out the extent of the spying program has essentially been called off in favor of changing the law to fit the crime. This in itself is an admission that the president overstepped his power. Sen. Arlen Spector, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has begun a panel to study the situation mainly to give the president cover. The Censure resolution will probably fail this time due to harsh political realities, and because opponents would like to force a vote before real debate occurs. However, Senators showing some backbone can only help their stature in the minds of wavering Democrats and Independents alike. It could even help them with Republicans who still hold the rule of law and the Constitution above party loyalty.

The Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure has clearly been usurped by the administration, and no tinkering with the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) can save it. The current law established in 1978 states that a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court before performing domestic surveillance, except in emergencies where it can be accomplished retroactively within 72 hours, or 15 days during wartime. Note that it is required even under extraordinary circumstances; this is one of the foundations of our republic. Our freedoms cannot simply be taken away by executive order. If the president is not held accountable for violating this principle, we have begun to vacate the democracy our fore-fathers sacrificed to invent.

The only precedent for censure of an American president so far was Andrew Jackson in 1834 for removing the nation's funds from the bank in order to defy the opposition party that controlled the Senate. It's a largely symbolic gesture that amounts to a hard slap on the wrist, and is mild compared to what may ultimately be needed here. Even this remedy alone, though, would be extremely difficult for the current administration to accept, especially since they are grievously averse to the slightest criticism, and because any accountability whatsoever would be such big news. Such a step could be perceived as devastating to the reputation of the President's party during the midterm elections, propaganda planted in the mainstream press notwithstanding. The Republican line that any talk of censure or impeachment would hurt the Democrats instead is merely what they would like us to think, and those that fall for it and stop calling for the procedures required by the Constitution are just playing into their hands.

Few other presidents in U.S. history, if any, are more deserving of reproach than this one; not only the long list of impeachable scandals, but the long-term damage to the country and the world that they entail. The destruction wreaked on basic American interests and ideals may never be fully repaired, or even forgotten many centuries from now. Certainly the lives lost in Iraq can never be recovered or the unnecessary suffering of its people under our occupation undone. The answer must be a complete reversal of the Bush administration agenda as a whole and a new direction for the country. The coming mid-term elections offer the best hope of beginning to achieve this, if we can overcome electronic tabulation of our votes. In the meantime a national debate over censure can help foster the change that needs to occur. It may take years, but everyone in Congress that finds the strength to speak out against tyranny now will eventually be rewarded.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0313-36.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0331-31.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0330-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0330-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0313-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0315-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0315-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0319-24.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12093379/

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/30/the_gops_stake_in_checking_the_president.php

Constitutional Crisis

2006-02-28T23:41:00.000-08:00

We are now entering the crisis the founders of our nation hoped to avoid when they wrote the Constitution of the United States. In spying on Americans without first obtaining a warrant, President George W. Bush has not only violated the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but one of the benchmark documents of our republic; specifically, 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. This is one of the most basic tenets of our government and no exception is provided in time of war. In point of fact, the Revolutionary War was fought to establish these rights, and they cannot be taken away by fiat. The powers Bush claims simply don't exist in Article 2, section 2, and can't be granted by Congress. Either a new Amendment bolstering his case needs to be ratified by all 50 states, or the president needs to be impeached under Article 2, section 4. These are the remedies available in the Constitution itself, and only impeachment retains our liberties intact.

Instead, the Senate Intelligence Committee wants to simply make a cosmetic change to FISA rather than investigate wrongdoing by the administration. That's no surprise, but it is emblematic of the legislative vacuity threatening the separation of powers in the U.S. When responsibility is abdicated for sheer political reasons, democracy is injured irreparably. At first, there were bipartisan calls for Congressional hearings on domestic wiretapping. But after an obligatory browbeating by Vice President Dick Cheney, most Republican Senators have decided to acquiesce to the White House rather than risk losing support in the coming election. No matter how weak the Bush administration may appear at times, they are still capable of gross intimidation and are not beyond manipulating results to their advantage. Liberals are often accused of "hating" Bush and everything he proposes (a syndrome caused, ironically, by Bush himself), yet the accusers are guilty of a blind allegiance that dismisses all criticism.

The list of scandals Bush and Cheney should be tried for by Congress is almost too long to cover in a single article. Unbelievably, this plays to the administration's advantage. Where does one begin? There are the devastating failures (or conspiracies, if you follow the evidence) on 9/11 and their imperfect cover-up; this undeniably catastrophic event conveniently laid the groundwork for achieving goals clearly delineated beforehand. Then we have the outright deceptions that hurtled us into the Iraq war. Leaking the identity of a CIA agent in order to retaliate against a critic, and thereby jeopardizing national security. Quite blatantly stealing another "election." The torture of prisoners. Illegal surveillance. Lying to Congress in order to start or defend wars, pass bills (such as Medicare reform), or to keep from being investigated. These are just the impeachable offenses. We are of course stuck with the dubious Supreme Court decision that installed Bush in the first place. Equally egregious is the dereliction of duty during Hurricane Katrina, and the obfuscation of the science behind global warming; both interrelated.

These are dark times for our republic, and unfortunately no end is in sight. We can expect an attack on Iran in the near future in order fulfill the next-step in the long-range plan to secure Middle Eastern resources (oil and natural gas). This would also provide a timely distraction from pesky investigators demanding accountability, with all the problems of the administration summarily pushed aside in favor of a debate on Iran. Democrats running for Congress would be forced to support the war or be labeled weak on terrorism, just like in 2002. Republicans will not hesitate to attempt a rerun of their previous success (if it can be called that), and the onslaught would be difficult to overcome, mostly because they still control the electronic voting machines that should have been decertified years ago. It will actually be surprising under these circumstances if they not only don't lose control of either or both Houses of Congress, but gain the 5 Senate seats they need to shut down all debate.

The only remaining way to preserve a true democracy in America is to halt electronic voting until the technology can be independently verified. This is astonishingly unlikely in the current political climate; in fact the opposite is already happening. More machines are being implemented nationwide without oversight. Unless this trend is reversed, we are at the mercy of an unstoppable force that is close to unprecedented dominance. Only a comparison to previous regimes that we considered our arch-enemies can do justice to the breathtaking power our government is on the verge of attaining. Czechoslovakia and then Poland were invaded when the people of Germany became restless and started questioning government policies one year after Austria was conquered. All three countries were ostensibly harboring "terrorists." The parallels are astonishing, and anyone that doesn't believe this should research the beginnings of World War 2. We swore "never again," but history usually finds a way to repeat itself. Only education can save us now, and we face an uphill battle against encroaching propaganda. We'll find out if a shred of real freedom is left to uphold or protect us in the months and years ahead.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0217-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0226-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0218-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0218-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-35.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0201-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0221-32.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0321-07.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index.jsp

http://harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11946.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12sun1.html?ex=1297400400&en=7557897fdc67af47&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.php

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021906Y.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20060210.html

Iranian Oil

2006-01-31T23:26:00.000-08:00

Nearly every day we have another news item about Iran and it's purported nuclear ambitions. The corporate media continually parrots White House talking points in an obvious attempt to prop up the inevitable invasion of Iran. What needs to be understood is that this has been part of the plan all along, beginning with Afghanistan, extending to Iraq, and now we've arrived at the next phase. Iran is the second biggest producer of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia; Iraq is third. The factions currently in power in the United States have had their eye on controlling all three sources, plus the Afghan pipeline, for over a decade. It could be argued that it is in America's interest to achieve supremacy in the Middle East, but a better case could be made for sheer diplomacy instead of the course we have taken (not to mention the necessity of developing alternative fuels).

Our own National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) puts Iran five or ten years away from accomplishing nuclear fission, much less an implosive device. They do have conventional missiles which they have threatened to employ if attacked, though it would be unreasonable to contend that they don't have the right to defend themselves. An invasion by either the United States or Israel would be yet another preemptive strike illegal under international law. Besides, with the U.S. military already stretched thin, there would be resistance even from within to such a provocative move. We can't afford another repeat of the Iraq debacle; an expansion of hostilities would destabilize any hope of a peaceful resolution to the current occupation, and with China and Russia supporting Iran, it might precipitate the beginning of World War 3.

Perhaps this would be a good time for America to truly lead, by honoring the anti-proliferation treaties we've signed, and providing a better example to other nations. We should be offering to build wind-farms and solar-cell factories in Iran and Iraq (and other countries), instead of intimidating them over dangerous nuclear ambitions that we haven't abandoned ourselves. A major sea-change is necessary for these questions to be resolved adequately, and it starts with our government. We have a chance to make a difference if we seize the moment and make a commitment to renewable energy. The truth is, no one really needs nuclear power, and the quicker wind and solar capabilities can be implemented worldwide, the safer everyone will be. This the position we should be taking, and it's the only path to a brighter future.

Meanwhile, one of the reasons for our continued presence in Iraq is simply positioning for the next escalation. That's partly why we're unlikely to leave no matter how much people protest. Possession of Iran's oil is the coup de grace for America's imperialist ambitions, and once this is achieved, our goal of controlling all major oil sources in the Middle East will be complete. It will be a painful adjustment for the world, but the juggernaut is already on the way, and there is not much that can be done to stop it. Only U.S. withdrawal from the region and a newfound respect for the sovereignty of other nations can establish the precedent needed to create stability.

Referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council for alleged nuclear warhead development is an action long desired by the Bush administration as a way to force the issue until it becomes untenable. Iran could diffuse the situation by backing down on threats to disallow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and restart its (ostensibly domestic) nuclear program. These measures are precisely the opposite of the referral's purpose, and only increase the chances of an impasse. Negotiation is still an option for the moment, though it would require good faith by all sides, and a mutual desire for peace.

An aspect that has been mostly absent from press coverage is the monetary change going into effect on March 20, when Iran intends to switch to euros in lieu of dollars for oil. It would be exceedingly disadvantageous to the U.S. if this occurs, since it stands to disrupt our global monopoly. China, Russia, and other nations have also expressed an interest in going this direction, and that could leave America vulnerable to being called on the debt they are holding for us. If that happens our oil-based economy could collapse, and we would be at the mercy of the rest of the world, instead of the other way around. That's why we're rattling sabers over Iran right now; U.S. dominance is at risk. Maybe if we weren't so arrogant in the first place, these countries wouldn't be so eager to circumvent us.

It should be noted that Saddam Hussein began exchanging euros for oil back in Oct. 2000. This explains the rush to topple Iraq's government at the start of President Bush's first term (well before 9/11). Vice President Cheney's secret Energy Task Force is also properly viewed in this context. It makes sense of the "Mission Accomplished" declaration two months after the invasion; Iraq's oil was once again traded in dollars. It's absolutely vital to corporate interests in the U.S. and Great Britain for dollars to remain the main world currency, and from this perspective it's understandable that Britain is our only significant ally in the war. The so-called mainstream media will not touch this story, as it completely contradicts the official line.

A way out of this mess is practically inconceivable, unless President Bush can be weakened enough at home that he would be unable to initiate the next war. We know from experience, though, that he has never let anything like public opinion, International Law, or our own Constitution stop him. Iran's continued defiance of the U.N. would give our government all the rationale it needs to strike (never mind that we are also in violation over Iraq). If this ploy doesn't work, Dick Cheney has already intimated that we will invade Iran if there were to be another attack in the U.S., whether there is a connection or not. Considering that the Bush administration has done very little to actually protect us, it's unfortunately possible that they will get what they want. All we can do is apply everything in our power to minimize the damage until the country can somehow be set back on course, and hope that it's not too late.

Sources:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

http://energybulletin.net/7707.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm

http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/

Domestic Spying

2005-12-31T23:57:00.000-08:00

Several positive developments have occurred recently, including the passing of (at least cosmetic) anti-torture laws, the halting of Patriot Act extensions that would have endangered civil liberties, and the removal of Arctic drilling from the defense bill. These are significant defeats for the White House, but we must remain vigilant because the forces in control still vow to restrict our rights ostensibly in order to protect them. It's astounding that we're having to debate whether to allow the torture we deny using, or whether spying on Americans without a warrant is legal since the Constitution of the United States clearly states otherwise. Being at war doesn't suspend these safeguards; in fact, we should be particularly careful to respect the rule of law if our goal is be an example to the rest of the world. A president also shouldn't be able to use a conflict he himself started in order to establish "at war" status. Foreign and domestic relations demand a sensible diplomacy and a regard for universal values sorely lacking in recent dialogue.

Meanwhile, President Bush has admitted to authorizing extensive surveillance without the necessary court orders, emphatically insisting that he is within the Constitution. However, it's obvious that many of these cases exceeded customary boundaries, since apparently all formality had to be suspended. An expansion of power even beyond the Patriot Act (which still requires warrants) was sought, using 9/11 as the excuse, but when rebuffed, the White House decided to bypass both Congress and the courts. These revelations come on the heels of news that the Pentagon has been monitoring anti-war groups for some time now, a practice that has more to do with keeping an eye on perceived enemies of the Bush administration than national security. Linking those exercising their constitutional right of dissent with terrorism is a paranoid fantasy worthy of former President Nixon, and is indeed reminiscent of the late 1960s. Ironically, the laws now in place were set up to eliminate just this kind of excess. In taking us backwards, George W. Bush has effectively imperiled the liberty he so vociferously claims to champion.

Presidential powers set forth in Article Two of the Constitution are being stretched to undermine the Fourth Amendment guarantee of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This is a convoluted attempt to strengthen the executive at the expense of the legislative and judiciary branches. A tribunal set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is already in place to handle top-secret inquiries and provide special warrants when needed. Even this essentially rubber stamp court was forced to modify increasingly broad administration requests in order to comply with the law. It didn't take long for the president to grow impatient with these limitations and decide to dispense with the requirements altogether. That he personally signed off on more than three dozen cases reveals an extra bureaucratic step that should have been left to the court in the first place.

The charge that the leaking of this program somehow endangers national security is patently false since most self-respecting terrorists must suspect that wiretaps are occurring around the clock anyway. Urgency isn't an issue since authorization can be obtained retroactively within 72 hours, or up to 15 days during wartime. The only difference now is that the president has taken it upon himself to make the decision giving the National Security Agency (NSA) wider leeway instead of allowing judges or Congress their say; this is beyond the scope of his office. Our representational government requires the input of all three branches, along with guidance from the Constitution. A separation of powers must be recognized, or else a totalitarian state may ensue. The executive's reach should always be equal to, but never superior to the others; this is the foundation of our republic.

A circumstance that needs to be taken into account is the emergence of technology that wasn't available back in 1978 when FISA was set up. Computers can now search through massive amounts of data in a short time, and consequently e-mails and hard-drives can be monitored in an unprecedented fashion. Phone calls, both land and cell, can be traced much more easily than before. This raises privacy issues that have never been fully addressed, but we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution to do it. New laws need to be forged regarding the changes in the way information is handled, but the administration must not be allowed to abuse the situation in the meantime. Limits need to be set on how much data can be stored indefinitely, simply as a matter of shielding the innocent. It has now emerged that for several years internet providers and telecommunications corporations have supplied the NSA with virtually everything they have requested without restriction. Unbeknownst to us, the government has been accessing virtually all international communications, either originating in or destined for the U.S., placing our country in a legal limbo of potentially catastrophic proportions.

Congressional hearings have been called for in a bi-partisan manner, unusual for our current political climate, but it remains to be seen whether there is any substance involved, or if this is just empty posturing. No Senator or Representative wants to face re-election without seeming to stand up for such a basic right as safety from undue government scrutiny. Unbelievably, we seem obliged to petition for the rights secured by the Revolutionary War all over again. The executive branch has assumed powers normally reserved for kings or dictators, not the elected officials of a democracy. Checks and balances established by the founders have been pushed aside in favor of the president.

Even though Mr. Bush can't prove that he was ever legitimately elected, he is still required to abide by the Constitution. That the domestic spying story was withheld from the public for over a year at the behest of the White House (they didn't want it released now, either), is indicative of an abdication of responsibility by both the mainstream media and the Bush administration. The public was not only deliberately uninformed about matters critical to their expectations of privacy, but denied crucial information before the 2004 election. This amounts to blatant intimidation of the fourth estate, directly jeopardizing freedom of the press guarantees vouchsafed in the First Amendment.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has offered a resolution of censure for President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as an adjunct to discovering if impeachment can address the avalanche of offenses committed by the administration. Certainly there are grounds for investigations into the manipulation of evidence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the torture of captives, the broad surveillance of citizens, and the issues behind indictments already pending against top government officials. Together this constitutes a devastating case of malfeasance surely exceeding anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated. Republicans ignore these crimes at their own peril; the only way to save their party and the country itself from imploding is to agree to full Congressional hearings, complete with subpoena power.

Unfortunately, the public has become inured to scandal, and a compliant Congress and media will probably once again give the president the benefit of the doubt after a spirited debate. Given a choice between introducing the Articles of Impeachment or an Amendment to the Constitution reflecting the new paradigm, the latter is a much more likely prospect. However, the issue isn't just about whether the president should have the powers he claims, but whether he overstepped the rules by superseding Congress and the courts in exercising them. Members of Congress have a responsibility to remove a president that has broken the laws of the nation, by impeachment if necessary. This directive is instilled in the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, and that solemn duty is abrogated if such a trial fails to materialize.

As we head into the new year, and a congressional election to boot, we need to be mindful of the ability of the American people to bring about change. However, our election system is damaged in many ways and it's unclear whether it can be fixed in time to prevent another coup. It has been proven that the secret proprietary software owned by private companies friendly to the Bush administration can easily be hacked by insiders. Touch-screen computers are the most vulnerable and if they are to be used for such an important task as voting, open-source code verifiable by independent experts should be mandatory. Perhaps we would be better off scrapping polling places altogether and switching to a national mail-in format similar to Oregon's successful program, thus eliminating long lines, provisional ballots, picture I.D. cards, and the threat of electronic tampering in one fell swoop.

Election reform remains our greatest challenge, even ahead of holding the current administration accountable, because without the right to vote for the candidates of our choice, we can never make the changes necessary to get the country back on course. The mid-terms will help determine whether we head towards stability or increasing turmoil, depending on your viewpoint. A Democratic Congress could spell trouble for President Bush, but it would signal the beginning of healing for the nation and the world. Iraq, national security, international peace, and the economy, for starters, all hang in the balance. Let's work together to achieve real victory, which in this case has nothing to do with the battlefield, but rather the re-assertion of the ideals we all cherish, regardless of politics.

Sources:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-39.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1228-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1226-05.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1224-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1224-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1223-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1223-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1223-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1218-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1218-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-35.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1221-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1221-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1221-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1220-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1220-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-34.htm

http://johnconyers.com/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10592932/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10564288/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10485860/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530417/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun1.html?ex=1292562000&en=5174791e648f571d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?ex=1292734800&en=d2129bfa7b4b8554&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/25/MNGCEGD95C1.DTL

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/18/Opinion/Warrantless_surveilla.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121805A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121805B.shtml

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html

Iraq Pullout

2005-11-30T23:37:00.000-08:00

It's time to look for an end to the occupation of Iraq. Rep. John Muthra has offered a reasonable suggestion for a pullout to begin within six months. This would give the Iraqis time to settle into their new government after the December 15th election. Lingering much longer than that would give the "insurgency" more incentive to continue fighting, rather than less. Muthra is correct in that we are the real targets now, even though it was probably so from the beginning. It needs to finally be acknowledged that the United States' presence in Iraq is part of the problem rather than the solution. Unless we make it clear that we will eventually leave completely, the violence is bound to continue unabated. The idea that we should stay because the resistance wants us to leave is the most ironic and tragic absurdity given so far. The real reasons have more to do with the goals of those in charge of the U.S. government than any altruism toward Iraq. Even though the unadorned truth about why we are there might hurt morale, asking troops to sacrifice their lives without being honest with them is many times worse.

The attacks on the messenger came immediately and were characterized by much handwringing and gratuitous posturing. White House press secretary Scott McCllellan exclaimed that John Muthra was "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party." One relatively new member of the House of Representatives resorted to terming those who advocate a timetable to exit Iraq as "cowards" who wanted to "cut and run." These kind of histrionics show the war advocates in a bad light and distances them from the mainstream they claim to represent. The charges were answered beautifully by Muthra himself, pointing out that he drives by Arlington Cemetery everyday on the way to work, and the tombstones don't say Democrat or Republican, but American. It should also be noted that hurling insults is detrimental to rational discourse, and fails to address the issues at hand. Muthra's credentials are unassailable compared with those making such wild comparisons.

The Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us out of their country and they should be the ultimate arbiters in the matter. This war never had anything to do with the security of the U.S., but rather the interests of the radicals currently controlling our government. The corporate press continues to bolster the Bush administration's case that we are somehow fighting the "war on terror" in Iraq, by printing White House propaganda on a daily basis. They keep announcing that we are capturing or killing this or that "terrorist," only to later admit it wasn't necessarily true. It's hard to get the facts to the American people when there is so much noise from the media echo chamber. Major news articles keep saying Democrats "voted for the war," when what they did was give President Bush the power to invade Iraq, if necessary. It was the President that made the decision, though the authority to declare war should never have been surrendered by Congress. Clearly the resolution was all a formality anyway, since Bush was intent on invasion from the start of his first term.

Investigations into the way we were misled into Iraq are crucial to the future of the U.S. and the rest of the world. The pre-emptive strike mentality must be repudiated and a new era of truth and openness needs to follow. Congressional hearings are a first step towards this goal, along with the various criminal indictments going forward. Wrong-doing by our government needs to be thoroughly exposed before a broad reversal can ensue. Our basic philosophy must again include justice and freedom for all without being just an empty slogan. This means an end to the use of torture, as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Any defense of these tactics is the ultimate proof of hypocrisy, since that was one of the stated reasons for overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime in the first place. Meanwhile, we deny that we torture captives or employ chemical weapons, while claiming the right to continue doing just that. For instance, it recently emerged that our troops had indeed used white phosphorus against targets, though our military vociferously insisted otherwise.

Unfortunately, President Bush and his administration are loath to admit any mistakes or change course for fear of losing their dwindling base of support. They seem to really believe their deceptions, or need to continue them to protect themelves. The administration is still determined to control the Middle East and retain long-term contracts for its oil; that's why they don't want to leave. However, their energy policies are outdated, and actually threaten our security rather than strengthening it. It's too bad that they have put us in a position where removing them from office may be the only way to restore confidence in our government. But before Democrats can take any major steps they need to articulate an alternative vision, and this needs to include Republicans and Independents in the discussion as well. We must go beyond liberal and conservative labels and find common ground, without diluting what the country truly stands for. Once that occurs, we can join together in healing our nation, as well as Iraq.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1117-08.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1118-12.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1119-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-03.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1130-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1130-09.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1119-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1119-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1119-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1119-27.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_IRAQ_MURTHA?SITE=VTBAR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10088231/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10271158/from/RS.4/

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Egypt-Iraq-Conference.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/24/AR2005112400477_pf.html

Indictments Finally

2005-10-31T22:21:00.000-08:00

Finally we are beginning to see some of the indictments that the extremists controlling our government so richly deserve. It will take a real effort by the mainstream media to set the record straight after years of playing along with this charade. First of all, the news media itself, with rare exceptions just to appear balanced, has sold itself to corporate interests backing a neo-conservative agenda. The real mainstream in this country is generally what used to be called liberal and is now represented only by progressive websites and blogs. It's time to take our country back from the right-wing zealots that have taken the reigns of power by force; even hijacking the Republican party. Their goal was never to work with Democrats and others for the common good, but to eradicate all debate by destroying the opposition. They gained the presidency twice and both Houses of Congress over the years with the plot, but it's beginning to disintegrate.

It started with the indictment of Tom Delay on corruption charges that are just an example of the dirty tricks played on America by the current regime. Illegal campaign contributions led to the first Republican majority in the Texas House in 130 years. Once they achieved that, they were able to redistrict so that Republicans could add five more seats in the United States House of Representives. This added to their already swelled ranks possibly gained by the manipulation of electronic voting machines. It will be difficult to undue the damage to our republic and they know it. Part of the problem is that many of them think what they are doing is right for the country. They really believe that the liberalism that has sustained the U.S. since its founding is wrong, and are determined to reverse it. The time has come to show them as clearly as possible the error of their ways. It won't be easy, though Hurricane Katrina ripped away the curtain, and showed there was no real compassion or integrity in their plans.

One way to expose the truth is through the recent indictment of "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. His violation of security clearances by talking to reporters about a covert CIA agent and subsequent lying about it might be the key to unraveling the web of deceit surrounding the White House. The reasons for talking about Valerie Plame were at the very least intended to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, because he had pointed out major discrepancies in the Bush administration's case for the war in Iraq. The Niger documents insinuating Saddam Hussein's purchase of uranium for nuclear weapons were obvious forgeries and the administration had to know it. It's important to find out who forged those documents and how and why they were obtained by our government. That is a possible course of inquiry by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald who is heading the Plame investigation. It is now known that he has the authority to pursue any illegality involved in the case, no matter where it leads.

Of course, the so-called mainstream press has already begun its attempts to provide cover for President George W. Bush at all costs. Most of the current articles in the news are about how his second-term slide can be fixed, as though this were a typical slowdown of support that happens to all presidents. Actually, the actions of this White House constitute perhaps the most impeachable offenses in U.S. history. The only thing stopping the charges are a compliant Congress that was not counted on by the writers of our Constitution. The immediate selection of Samuel Alito, a hard-line conservative, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor (after Harriet Miers was forced to withdraw), the very next working day after Libby's indictment was announced, is calculated to distract from the criminal trials pending. Next we can expect a concerted effort to blame Democrats for obstruction of the president's agenda. The public is waking up to the distortion, however, and the administration might not get away with it this time.

President Bush has so far escaped close scrutiny in the CIA leak case, but it should eventually catch up with him. Everyone, even those in denial, must know that Bush and Cheney are involved in this, and any supposed lack of engagement by them as an excuse is then direct proof of incompetence. Unfortunately, it's not illegal to be incompetent, so complicity in the leak or its cover-up needs to be indisputably shown. Since the investigation was stalled for over a year by the various lies and red-herrings, it may take a long time to complete. I hope the country has the stomach for it, because if we don't, the consequences could be even more severe. With America's reputation in tatters, only a true reckoning can begin the healing process necessary to reestablish the trust of the nation and the rest of the world. This could be the beginning of a new era of accountability, though we have been disappointed so many times before. If a bright future is possible, it depends on thoroughly understanding the past, and we are starting to see some illumination.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1002-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1002-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1003-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1026-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1027-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1031-21.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/60minutes/main994753.shtml

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051031/HERSH31/TPEntertainment/?query=Hersh

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10816.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9558564/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9557669/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9583433/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865902/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9874588/

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092800270.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901478.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101386.html

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19693

Resignations Now

2005-09-30T21:45:00.000-07:00

The time has come for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to resign in disgrace. After Hurricane Katrina, America can no longer afford a fake effort to protect us, or further decimation of our infrastructure. Since a Republican Congress is unlikely to impeach, we must ask for their resignations now. 300,000 (not just "100,000 or more" as generally reported) marched in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 24 to call for an end to the war that is at the root of this crisis; a position now shared by a clear majority of Americans. Since this administration is committed to retaining power at any cost, pressure must be applied at least as a matter of conscience. We can't wait for the 2006 elections for a Democratic Congress to introduce impeachment proceedings. And would they have the spine to do so, even if they had the power? Besides, it's clear that unless a major overhaul is done to our election systems, the Republicans will steal yet another "election."

It needs to be understood that we no longer have a real democracy in the United States. Exit polls have always been accurate in every previous election within 1%, and were correct this time only in precincts without computerized voting. The polls clearly showed a John Kerry victory nationwide by 5 million votes, along with victories in Ohio and Florida securing the Electoral College; disenfranchisement of minorities notwithstanding. A hand recount of Ohio has still not been attempted because of malfeasance by precinct heads who have now been belatedly indicted for not allowing the full state recount required by Ohio law. Not to mention the duplicity of Ohio's Secretary of State also acting as Bush's reelection chairman--eerily similar to the Florida fiasco in 2000. This is all without even considering Florida's continued problems in 2004.

The vulnerabilities in electronic voting machines were known years before last November, yet were inexplicably never addressed. Only Congressional hearings with full subpoena power can force the private companies that count our votes to release their source code for public scrutiny. These companies are run by some of Bush's biggest campaign contributors, and are run under a veil of secrecy without accountability to the American people. Unless they are stopped, Republicans will continue building a super-majority to cut off all debate, even in mid-term elections when the party in power usually loses some clout. It will take a monumental scandal to expose the depth of corruption gripping our nation, and some Republicans with integrity willing to investigate themselves.

A new report from the Carter/Baker Commission makes two half-way reasonable suggestions: A verifiable paper trail for computerized voting (the problem with this is that true recounts are rarely done), and elections run by nonpartisan officials (better than nothing, but a little late, since two major elections have already been tainted). The other recommendation is the draconian national I.D. card idea, which is part of a Republican scheme to blame Democrats for "voter fraud," while disenfranchising millions of voters nationwide. Though there is little actual evidence of such fraud, they would like to deflect criticism from their own manipulation of the voting process. Most of these problems would be easily solved by adopting Oregon's successful mail-in elections on a national scale, thus eliminating the need for absentee ballots, provisional ballots, or electronic voting machines altogether.

We should be very concerned about the major decisions being made now that will affect generations to come. This is a time when our main focus should be on delivering relief for the victims of Katrina and Rita, yet Supreme Court appointments are being rammed through Congress by a president that can't even prove he was ever legitimately elected. A candidate few had heard of three months ago is being catapulted to Chief Justice with nary a whimper from the so-called mainstream press. Whittling away at Roe v. Wade is just the beginning of an onslaught geared to destroy federal oversight of many hard-won benchmark decisions. States' rights are important, but we need a strong federal government to withstand a breach in the common fabric that unifies us. We need protection from the tyranny of the majority as provided in the Bill of Rights, especially when the majority is proven illegitimate.

This country is in serious trouble because of the Bush administration, and another attack inside the United States might just finish us off. Unfortunately, that is the position we now find ourselves in. The war in Iraq has left us vulnerable, and Homeland Security is obviously not up to the task of protecting America or helping us withstand any cataclysm. Bush himself asked whether we are prepared for the next emergency. That's reassuring to hear from the supposed leader of our government; maybe something should have been done sooner to improve this scenario. One step might have been to have the National Guard here at home where they belong, instead of in Iraq. This left Louisiana 30,000 troops short, forcing the Guard to fly in reinforcements from other states.

Immediately after Katrina, Dick Cheney's office ordered electricity switched from hospitals and relief efforts in order to get some oil pipelines back in service. With priorities like this, there is little hope that things will really get better. Also, the company doing the body count in Louisiana has ties to the Bush administration, and is known in the past to be involved in cover-ups reaching all the way back to Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas. The heads of FEMA (Federal Emergency Response Administration) and Homeland Security were both political appointees with little experience except with President Bush's election campaigns. Cheney's former company, Halliburton, received no-bid contracts for the oil cleanup, just like in Iraq. We can do much better than this kind of blatant cronyism, and it's time to expose the truth before they literally get away with murder.

Mainstream news sources need to look for practical solutions to this mess, and that must include talking about impeachment. Even though some columnists are willing to criticize the administration strongly, they are strangely silent about the obvious remedy provided by our fore-fathers. Could it be that the media are owned by the same special interests that support the president unequivocally? Of course they are. Big Energy is behind much of this, and Bush has admitted that we can't leave Iraq without "protecting" the oil. I'm waiting for someone to accuse liberals of not understanding the importance of this, even though we have known it was the main reason for the war from the beginning. It must be remembered that it is not our oil to take, and if we had not been such bullies in the first place, we wouldn't have such difficulty obtaining a fair share.

It is now becoming clear what has long been suspected, that the continued chaos in Iraq is not merely a result of incompetence by our civilian leaders, but a purposeful prolongation of the conflict. As soon as the "insurgency" is quelled, there will be no logical reason to maintain our military presence. The Bush administration wants permanent bases, and even the threat of a civil war gives us an excuse to stay. Also, leaving without controlling the region and the oil would appear to be a defeat for Bush, something he could never admit. Actually, an immediate pullout of all of our forces is the only way to prevent more "terrorism." The Iraqis should be allowed to conduct their own elections without U.S. interference, and international forces could help clean up whatever mess remains.

Our resources would be much better spent here in America, developing alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, and spending money on a more sustainable economy. A strong response to the global warming that is the cause of increasingly powerful hurricanes and other natural disasters would improve the image of the U.S. worldwide, and be profitable for business at the same time. We need to be looking at long-term solutions, instead of complying with the special interests of the oil and nuclear industry. Renewable energy sources could be spread out over the country so it wouldn't be such a problem every time another storm hits.

Much of New Orleans will probably be mostly uninhabitable for at least five years, maybe longer, according to a top expert with the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet the corporate press is mostly reporting how the cleanup is proceeding better than expected, and the situation is not as bad as previously thought. It's just like after 9/11 when the Bush administration covered up the true extent of the toxicity of the twin towers debris, to the extent of actually changing the EPA report; they apparently wanted Wall Street up and running as soon as possible. Many recovery workers have irreversible damage because of this, and we have to be concerned that it's happening again. People should not be allowed back into most of the city or any of the other affected areas until it is proven completely safe, especially with further hurricanes possible.

A truly independent inquiry into both the response to Katrina and the underlying lack of funding for levee reparation is absolutely necessary, though the administration is fighting it just like they resisted having a 911 Commission (weak as it was). However, since more than 80% of Americans want such an investigation at the very least, some semblance of a real inquiry can be blocked for only a short time. This is the beginning of a far-reaching reckoning that should never end. Even though Bush claims to accept responsibility, he still blames everyone but himself or his friends. In the face of all these scandals and more, it's time to call for the impeachment or resignations of all the top officials in our government. This would create a constitutional crisis, but our country is strong enough to handle it. The general welfare must take precedence over protecting the executive branch from prosecution. Our national security itself depends on it.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0914-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0911-03.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0914-29.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0914-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0908-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0914-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0915-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0819-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0919-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0929-28.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/24/global_warming_you_better_believe_it?mode=PF

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001838.htm

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/25552/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/09/24_enemy.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001138507

http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_09_19.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9173582/

http://katrinablog.msnbc.com/2005/09/toxic_ghost_tow.html#below-fold

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/FEMA_outsources_Katrina_body_count_to_firm_implicated_in_bodydumping_scan_0913.html

http://rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1219

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-09-14T174247Z_01_N14659343_RTRIDST_0_KATRINA-KENYON-RECOVERY.XML

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-09-27T171814Z_01_N27198532_RTRIDST_0_HURRICANES-COMMISSION.XML

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=60243

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/NEWS05/509110304

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091405B.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091705Y.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091905D.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/093005F.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201433.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001894_pf.html

Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-31T22:15:00.000-07:00

The peace movement needed a miracle and they got one in the form of Cindy Sheehan, the now famous mother of a fallen soldier. She wants answers to important questions about the reasons behind the war in Iraq, and an end to the senseless slaughter. Her message may seem radical to some, but compared to the atrocities she is trying to stop, she is right in the mainstream. A grass-roots movement is building, and as we head more and more into a Vietnam type situation, vast majorities may come to protest this war. President Bush says we can't have a timetable, but already high-ranking military officers have been quoted as saying we will begin withdrawing troops within the year. (Just enough to convince the public that all is well before the mid-term elections.)

Part of the problem is that the Bush administration has never planned on leaving Iraq completely. We have fourteen permanent bases set up for our military. This more than sends the wrong message; it creates conditions for endless conflict. A shift in direction is needed that this administration is incapable of, both philosophically and literally. Since Bush has announced that we will not leave Iraq under his watch, our only recourse is to introduce the Articles of Impeachment as set forth in the United States Constitution. A president has never been impeached in time of war, but it nearly happened during Vietnam, and an illegal invasion that threatens to destroy everything America has ever stood for is an unprecedented circumstance.

Until recently I went along with the gradual withdrawal many have proposed. But we're hearing now that the military is planning on being there at least four more years at a 100,000 troop level as a worst-case scenario. Even this seems wishful thinking. It's a simple fact that the longer we occupy Iraq, the more blood will be shed. This eliminates any humanitarian rationale that might be claimed. Since we are the (so-called) insurgents main target, we must evacuate before we can even know what we have in the way of an insurgency. Any "terrorism" is only increased by our continued presence. Has it occurred to anyone that supports the war that we are actually the invaders here? The Iraqis might be so happy to see us leave that they could settle their differences relatively amicably. Maybe that's too optimistic on my part, but it is their country, remember?

Cindy Sheehan is seeking the truth about this unfortunate war, and a way to end it as soon as possible. Those that accuse her of having a left-wing agenda have a right-wing agenda themselves. It's also very hard to admit or accept that our soldiers are dying for worse than a mistake, but a deliberate deception. This has been proven over and over again. The Downing Street memos, Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, et al. It's clear that Iraq was on George Bush's agenda from the start, even before he ran for president. It's time to end the ruse. Vietnam required a complete pullout and it's just as necessary now. We might have to leave without "democracy" or "victory," but neither was ever a realistic goal in Iraq, nor ours to impose.

Some say the message should be toned down in order to reach people on the fence; Cindy responds that no one should still be sitting on the fence. That sounds a little too much like "You're either with us or against us," though I generally agree that people should be informed enough to take a stand on an issue of such importance. Unfortunately, since the mainstream press is playing along with Bush in failing to report the truth about what's going on, there really are people on the fence, through no fault of their own. She could try to be a little more diplomatic for their sake. It's refreshing, though, to finally hear someone saying what needs to be said.

Now she is taking her vigil to Washington, D.C., as Bush returns from his month-long vacation. It's going to be an eventful Fall, with a big demonstration in Washington that she will be part of. There are many other important issues besides the war before Congress and the Supreme Court that also need addressing, but we need to keep the focus on bringing the troops home. Excitement is in the air that a people's movement, combined with emerging scandals involving the Bush administration, could finally expose to the nation the full extent of the damage perpetuated in our name. Considering how long we've waited, I don't think anyone is holding their collective breaths until a true reckoning occurs.

Sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0820-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0821-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0821-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0818-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0813-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0829-22.htm

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9f81fef2-14de-11da-9df1-00000e2511c8.html

http://homepage.mac.com/godofkarma/swimmerfilms/iMovieTheater75.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9022420/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9032036/

Rovegate

2005-07-31T23:34:00.000-07:00

It doesn't matter if he is indicted or not, Karl Rove has admitted to discussing Valerie Plame (as Joseph Wilson's wife) with journalists. Statements made two years ago to the FBI don't jibe with the current story told through his lawyer. If he really did mean to just innocently protect the President from libel, then that should have been claimed in the first place. Instead it was insisted repeatedly that Rove never talked to reporters about Wilson's wife. We know now that he at least confirmed her identity, and that's a crime even of mere negligence.

This is a reheating of the story involving the exposure of a CIA agent in apparent retaliation for her husband's publication of an op-ed disputing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was obtaining uranium ore from Niger in order to restart their nuclear programs. This plan was based on a proven forgery about which the administration deigns complete innocence. More information about the forged document would be instructive; why a full investigation hasn't been held is curious.

The reason all this is coming back to the fore is that two journalists faced jail for refusing to name their sources for the leak. Matt Cooper got a last second reprieve from his source (Rove), the other is (far from) rotting in a minimum security prison. Judith Miller isn't protecting the First Amendment; she's protecting someone in the White House, and possibly herself, from criminal prosecution. Since Miller was one of the main disseminators of Iraq war propaganda in the mainstream media, her intentions here should be looked at credulously.

This scandal goes to the heart of the whole rationale for going to war with Iraq. It will be interesting to see if the mainstream press gathers the threads together, since we receive new revelations almost daily. Another memo has surfaced implicating someone aboard Air Force One, proving that key White House officials knew of Plame's occupation and that it was Top Secret. Either Rove lied to Bush about his involvement, or Bush lied when he told the nation that he would find and dismiss the leaker.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald probably won't announce any indictments before October, and even that deadline could be extended another six months if necessary. This story will likely fade until then, but it never should have been forgotten in the first place. It relates to the struggle of protecting our national security from political opportunists. Let's keep this on the forefront, while continuing to juggle the previous scandals, and it's inevitable that some kind of justice will prevail.

Sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0715-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0717-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0719-32.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0719-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0724-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0729-25.htm

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001000732

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/232

http://www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm#plame

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10016

http://www.theillustrateddailyscribble.com/daily.scribble.pages.05/07.19.05.html

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/ericmink/story/9B4E75AD9D6F9A7D86257044003231CB?OpenDocument

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19375

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_23080.shtml

Cabinet Briefings

2005-06-30T22:21:00.000-07:00

Seven more memos have been released to the Sunday Times of London, bolstering the case for investigating the already famous Downing Street minutes. The first of the new batch was a briefing paper passed around at the Downing Street meeting, written two days earlier. The inevitability of the Iraq invasion and the need to get around it's illegality was discussed, and also the Bush administration's lack of a real plan for the aftermath. When the story broke, American mainstream news sources only reported the latter allegation.

The other memos are various letters and memorandums to and from Tony Blair's top cabinet members. Much doubt is expressed about the legality or necessity of invading Iraq; a stark contrast to the public face our leaders were presenting. Also hinted at are the early bombings of Iraq, before Congressional or Parliamentary approval was obtained. These reports should be the ones that certainly finish both administrations. Unfortunately, it's also possible these documents could get lost in the maze of circumstances. The more scandals pile up, the easier it seems for at least the Bush administration to escape any particular scrutiny.

Maybe we'll finally see how powerful they really are, or how dangerous. It's scary to contemplate what events they could use to distract us from the truth. Some of these disasters are standard policy, like the almost obligatory take-over of Iran. Others include another possible attack on the United States. If either occurred, they know it would be hard to impeach a 'war' president. Darker days surely lie ahead rather than brighter ones. No matter what happens, it will be painful for all of us, regardless of ideology.

Even if obtaining oil by any means necessary is somehow in America's interest, it's still against international law. Perhaps these countries would be more likely to sell us oil in the first place if we weren't such bullies. It's rather late for diplomacy, though, and it's our fault. Without a change in course, we are heading straight for another world war. Our country doesn't seem to be trying to stop it, but rather the opposite. A commission to study the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war would be instructive as a beginning to understanding the true intentions of our government.

The distractions that help the Bush administration escape accountability also help them achieve their goals. They have now created the conditions to control Iran's oil, too. (Not to mention natural gas reserves, second largest in the world.) We need to move quickly, before they institute their plans anyway as par for the course. Full investigations and hearings need to happen before a viable excuse can be manufactured again for another invasion. Impeachment hearings could weaken Bush enough to lessen his clout. It may be the only way to stop the next world war.

Sources:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1663752,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669292,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0623-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0612-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0612-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0615-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0602-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0618-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0618-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0619-30.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0629-27.htm

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/22200/

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/22220/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

http://www.democraticunderground.com/crisis/05/015_bw.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/14/worldviews.DTL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701584.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos

Secret Memo

2005-05-31T21:44:00.000-07:00

A memo has been leaked to the British press that corroborates the position of anti-war protesters world-wide. The release several days before the election in Great Britain nearly brought down Tony Blair's government, but is barely making a stir in the United States. It is now clear we invaded a sovereign country under false pretences. Much of the world and half the U.S. has known it from the beginning.

It's a report from Britain's top advisors, back in July 2002, stating that President Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and that the facts were being "fixed" around the policy. It was deemed necessary to bait Saddam Hussein with threats of inspections, with the hopes of using his refusal as reason for war. But Saddam did allow the inspectors in, leaving Bush to make his case with virtually nothing except bogus evidence.

Oil has always been the main reason and Iraq is not the end. Iran is around the corner; both its oil and almost never mentioned natural gas constitute the second largest un-tapped reserves in the world. If you believe that current oil and gas consumption should continue unabated by any means necessary, then the Bush administration represents your interests. However, this diverges from the ultimate good of the American people, since oil is a finite resource, and alternative energy sources are abundant.

It's time to look for ways to get out of this mess. Unfortunately, impeachment of the president may be the only way to achieve a restoration of America's reputation. The fact that the Republican majority in Congress is unlikely to vote for it is further proof of its necessity. Even if a person agrees with the reasons (both given or actual) for the war in Iraq, eventually it must be acknowledged that Congress and the American people were deceived. In the absence of a lot of other options, some are calling for a national recall election, with paper ballots only.

It's hard to imagine what it would take for the rest of the public to wake up and realize they have been conned. The secret British memo is all the information we need to open an investigation. Full Congressional hearings should follow as soon as possible. Members of the House Judiciary committee are opening an inquiry over in Great Britain in order to get the ball rolling. For the American mainstream press to pick it up, it needs to be sensational enough to risk lucrative ties to corporate sponsors with connections to the White House.

Time is running out on stopping this administration from destroying the infrastructure of the United States. Their targets are many, so they must be confronted directly. The American people deserve to know the truth. This is apparently one of the things they are disputing. And just because it's old news that Bush misled us, doesn't mean it should be ignored. The toll increases daily because of these ill-fated decisions. It needs to be remembered that the Iraq war was foisted upon us, and its legality under national and international law has always been tenuous at best.

Our next move must be to alert the American people. If there is any semblance of integrity left in the mainstream media, it needs to come forward now. The future of the country and the world depend on it. Without demonstrating that we repudiate these policies, we are merely subjecting ourselves to more hatred that feeds the cycle of violence. Peace isn't possible until the arrogance of our own government has been examined and completely dissolved. Only then can the real America emerge into its role as a benevolent leader in the world.

Sources:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1622378,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi/American%20Empire/2005/05/18/A_Reputation_in_Tat

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0531-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0531-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0528-26.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0511-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0521-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0411-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0602-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0602-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0603-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0604-24.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0608-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0607-26.htm

http://www.johnconyers.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474.html

Media Silence

2005-04-30T21:56:00.000-07:00

The media has taken a role in our democracy, both good and ill. Unfortunately, a turn for the worse has occurred that both political persuasions dispute. The mainstream media is considered to be too conservative and too liberal by opposite sides at the same time. As long as the truth is being pursued, it shouldn't matter that much whether it's being presented with a liberal or conservative slant. However, when the press censors stories to protect the government or corporations, instead of the public interest, dangerous territory is entered.

The liberal media label itself is a concoction of the corporations that control the media. For example, though Fox is owned by a right-wing magnate, it was the leader in raising the bar for what they call liberal television. There really is a liberal media, but it consists of something else entirely, and the general public doesn't know it exists. The truth isn't getting out, often because it isn't being reported by the conglomerates. The real liberal media challenges the official story and doesn't accept things at face value; the way journalism is supposed to work.

Right now, the news is more of a tabloid show than anything else. It has become shallow and murky; the opposite of in-depth. There is the case of the fake reporter in the White House press corps. How he got his pass was never investigated, though national security may have been at risk. Questions about government interference with the media should also have been raised. The fact that this didn't become a serious news item, rather than just fodder for pundits, shows the control the right wing has over journalism today. If there truly was a mainstream liberal news media, they would be all over this one.

The consolidation of media is contributing to the decline of real journalism in the major outlets. An independent press is vital to a true democracy, yet both are vanishing before our very eyes. After the fact, we find out journalists were paid to write positive reviews for administration policies, and videos with actors instead of reporters were distributed and broadcast as real news. The General Accounting Office went so far as to call it propaganda; a bill has been introduced in the Senate to force the government to be more accountable in the future.

Entertaining us while protecting us from the facts seems to be a higher priority than telling a substantial news story. The American mainstream press failed to fully investigate the election of 2000, the mysteries of 911, the voting machine anomalies in the 2002 mid-term races, the run up to the Iraq war, the war itself, or the 2004 election debacle. These are just the most obvious abdications. We have to wonder just how deeply the media is complicit in the destruction of our national trust. For now, we must search for the truth in our own way, beyond the media silence.

Sources:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/blogrightscnetoped32405.pdf

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/04/con05129.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/04/int05017.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/05/ana05013.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/not_guilty_by_reason_of_the_pr.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/invasion_coverage.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7520345/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/05/06_media.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/04/16_death.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/04/20_tyranny.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/crisis/05/008_ep.html

http://www.resist.com.au/comments/c68.asp

http://pilger.carlton.com/

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20050414.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4947016,00.html

http://www.commonwonders.com/archives/col290.htm

http://commonwonders.com/archives/col293.htm

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18963

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042005.shtml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050605Y.shtml

http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.htm

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000912159

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-10.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=711509

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601538.html

911 Investigation

2005-03-31T22:48:00.000-08:00

I'd like to do an investigation of the investigation into 911. There are many unanswered questions that go to the heart of the matter. It is obvious there is a cover-up, and our own government's complicity cannot be ruled out. Either the Bush administration was catastrophically inept (possible), shrewdly culpable (possible), or a little of both (probable). At the very least, they exploited 911 for political gain; how much is what we need to know. Our nation's well-being may ultimately depend on finding the truth.

F.B.I. headquarters stopped an investigation of the hijackers just as it was making progress. Large stock sell-offs prior to the event were reported. Computers, security cameras, and locks were powered down in the south tower the weekend before, ostensibly for a cable upgrade. Many CEOs from the World Trade Center happened to be at a conference in Nebraska at the very Air Base Bush flew to after leaving the school in Florida. A false claim was even made from Air Force One of danger to the aircraft, that was later shown to be bogus; their story doesn't match the facts.

Former F.B.I. translator Sibel Edmonds has revealed that she saw documents involving attacks by airplanes on major American cities, that were labeled "not pertinent." Her supervisor told her not to pursue it. She was eventually fired for reporting similar abuses in the translation department, and was placed under a gag order for "national security" purposes. She testified at the 911 Commission hearings, but her testimony has remained top secret. Recently, she has been attempting to get the gag order relinquished and her testimony released.

The Federal Aviation Administration had 52 prior warnings about Al Qaida attacking the U.S. with airplanes as weapons. This information from the 911 Commission was withheld all the way through the election and inauguration, and was released soon after the swearing in of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State. Since Rice testified under oath that the Aug. 6th memo describing a possible attack was "historical in nature," she is clearly guilty of perjury. President Bush has made similar statements that are now proven to be patently false.

We know the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq long before 911, and were looking for a "new Pearl Harbor," to help achieve their goals. The warnings about Al Qaida may have been ignored specifically for this purpose. It is clear they stood to gain unprecedented power by an attack on the United States. President Bush was informed in the car on the way to the grade school about the first plane hitting the north tower, but went ahead anyway. He stayed in a classroom and read a story for ten crucial minutes after being told of the second attack, and then worked on his speech until being whisked away.

There is the matter of Afghanistan, which the Bush administration had been planning to invade prior to 911. They wanted in on an oil pipeline that the Taliban were controlling. It is now up and running, though we don't hear much about it. The mainstream media have dared not investigate this, since it would hurt America in the eyes of the world. However, they have caused much greater harm by their silence. As far as the rehabilitation of our reputation, only the end of Bush's term is likely to achieve that goal. The damage being done now might be irreversible. Certainly, 100,000 dead Iraqis cannot be brought back to life; they have been permanently "liberated." 1,500 American soldiers are also experiencing endless "freedom."

The 911 Commission report skimmed over some of the most important questions. For instance, why were no planes scrambled from the nearest Air Force base to protect the towers? Apparently it was decided to shoot down the hijacked planes, after it was too late. It is understandable that national security should be considered in deciding what to reveal, but maybe this is a case where transparency is required, before national security can be assured. As long as the reasons behind 911 failures are dismissed, the chances of avoiding a recurrence are low. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict has shown that the cycle of violence is hard to stop.

The Bush administration has gotten everything it wanted because of 911. The plot is so obvious, they even spell it out for us in their writings. Their plan is to destroy the liberal foundation of this country and replace it with a neo-conservative one. Only a coalition of liberals and conservatives who believe in the America our founders envisioned can stop the onslaught. It is necessary to look forward, but we must not forget the 3,000+ that died on September 11, 2001. There needs to be an independent investigation by irreproachable (i.e. truly non-partisan) observers. Until then, it's dangerous to give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that hasn't earned our trust.

Sources:

http://www.911timeline.net/

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

http://www.aviationtoday.com/reports/letter_tk.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0413-11.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0910-06.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0226-03.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0705-02.htm

http://independent.com/news/news906.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/weiner6.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1480093,00.html

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005502210360

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050321052700567

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=bush

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&theme=oil

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/cbs091901.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/19/BU184559.DTL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/16/wbush16.xml

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/911investigation/

http://www.alternet.org/story/14873/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32319-2001Sep26

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Climate Change

2005-02-17T21:51:00.000-08:00

One of the major issues facing the world is the possible weakening of the Gulf Stream. Just off Greenland, a whirlpool of salty water is being flushed away by arctic melting. This whirlpool is the beginning of the Great Conveyor Belt, an undersea river that helps propel the Gulf Stream as it swings around North America. High salt content in the Greenland Sea causes cold water to sink, providing the thrust that starts the Conveyor.

The current is so deep and dense that when it turns northward, it draws warm Pacific Ocean water over the surface of the Atlantic. This warm stream evaporates when it reaches the North Atlantic, helping keep Europe and the Eastern United States mild. If the Conveyor Belt falters or shuts down, the Gulf Stream would slow and many temperate regions would experience extreme cold.

The Gulf Stream itself can never completely shut down, because it is also pulled by wind and gravitational forces, but even a small decline would be catastrophic. During the height of our most recent Ice Age, 20,000 years ago, the Gulf Stream was operating at two-thirds its current strength. The Conveyor Belt accounts for half of the Streams pull, and there has been a 20% decrease in its outflow since 1950. This corresponds with reduced inflow at the beginning of the loop, further exacerbating the situation.

It was previously thought a transition between Glacial and Interglacial Ages would be gradual, but evidence discovered in the Greenland ice pack shows that it's more like flipping a switch. We're either in an Ice Age or we're not. Once that switch is flipped, there's no turning back; it can begin within 2 or 3 years. In our case it would be more of a "mini" Ice Age, if you will. Conditions could start resembling the Little Ice Age that occurred 1300-1850, during our current Temperate period.

Imagine longer, more severe winters; spring, summer, and fall ever shorter. Eventually winter would prevail over the Northern Hemisphere most of the year, while the rest of the world continues warming. Rain would cease in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere. Under this scenario, massive displacement of people, due to drought and famine, would cause unrest leading to wars. That's why the Pentagon is studying this. It was their report that got the attention of the media.

Most projections indicate these changes could happen in the next couple of decades to half century. The actual turning point is unknown. The world has warmed 0.7 Celsius (1.26 Farenheit) since just before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Once 2.0C (3.6 Farenheit) is reached, the damage is considered irreversible. We are heading there fast, with the highest average temperatures occuring since 1990. Scientists world-wide are working together to solve this problem, but unless something is done now to address the underlying causes, it really might be too late.

Sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5052363/

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0130-02.htm

http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html

http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechange.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1083419,00.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_keigwin.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_15misconceptions.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_rcurry_pr.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_currents10no2_riverruns.html

Election Reform

2005-01-24T11:59:00.000-08:00

Now that the inauguration is over, we can focus on election reform. The place to start is the computerized voting machines. A paper trail should be a minimum requirement, though it would be merely cosmetic since full hand-recounts are rarely accomplished, thanks to arbitrary deadlines or monetary concerns. Unfortunately, this is probably the only legislation with a chance of passing.

Perhaps more machines could be allocated in minority districts. The lines were unreasonably long and constitute in itself a clear case of disenfranchisement. However, if the machines can't be trusted, it wouldn't be reassuring to have more of them.

Voting machines need to be publicly owned, both touch-screens and tabulators. Allowing private companies to control source-code is a recipe for disaster; there's no accountability. This should be a non-partisan issue, and conflicts of interest should be avoided at all costs.

Provisional ballots should be minimized; 150, 000 in Ohio is unacceptable. This allowed too many votes to be taken off the table on election day. The 10-day wait before they could be counted was a true killer to John Kerry's chances to contest. They needed to be validated, but why so many in the first place? A provisional ballot should be a last resort, not standard. This is indicative of a problem with the whole process.

The best solution would be national mail-in voting, thus eliminating most of these concerns in one fell swoop. Also gone would be precinct location mix-ups and absentee ballot confusion. It has worked in Oregon for several years, as I can vouch. Getting nationwide support would be hard, though, unless a major scandal hits. I'm not holding my breath, but it wouldn't be surprising, since the scandals already exist.

First Post

2005-01-14T16:17:00.000-08:00

This is my very first post in my very first blog! I'd like to cover so-called "conspiracy theories" from a moderate liberal point of view. The recent election is a good starting point. I'm just getting started, so bear with me.