REPRESSION BEGINS AT HOME

Photograph: Cesar / pbase.com / The Protest of Bush's Inaugural, Washington DC, 2001



What if it were possible to interrupt history and rewrite it? This is not farfetched. A nation in the grips of repression is especially susceptible to this kind of re-scripting. And repression is a process which aims for several goals at once. It de-legitimizes the past. It disqualifies selected voters; it diminishes political alternatives by rigging the public agenda; and it depresses or skews citizen participation by manipulating and encouraging a climate of fear.

With the notable exception of Florida's vote-tampering in 2000, this has not been especially conspiratorial. Repression under George W. Bush has been a frontal assault, using the timely instruments of propaganda, divide-and-conquer, economic attrition against the politically vulnerable class, and an especially vulgar manipulation of America's mainstream press.

There has been ineptitude in reporting, particularly television, to match the ineptitude of the Bush Administration. Seasoned and well-informed internet commentators, like Bob Somerby, have challenged the laziness and awkward corruption of some familiar news people.

Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, identifies "trivialization and bias" in TV news;..."but they're related" he adds.

"...everyone knows that Teresa Heinz Kerry told someone to "shove it,", writes Krugman, "though even there, the context was missing. Except for a brief reference on MSNBC, none of the transcripts I've read mention that the target of her ire works for Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire who financed smear campaigns against the Clintons - including accusations of murder. (CNN did mention Mr. Scaife on its Web site, but described him only as a donor to "conservative causes.") And viewers learned nothing about Mr. Scaife's long vendetta against Mrs. Heinz Kerry herself." (NYT, 07/30/04)

"A Columbia Journalism Review Web site called campaigndesk.org, says its analysis "reveals a press prone to needlessly introduce Senators Kerry and Edwards and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as millionaires or billionaires, without similar labels for President Bush or Vice President Cheney." (ibid)

"Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies." (ibid)

"In short, the triumph of the trivial is not a trivial matter. The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq." (ibid)

A beautiful film tribute to John Kerry's heroism under fire, produced by Steven Spielberg, fades into a blur of pixels over the anchorman's shoulder; while the condescending reporter calls it "formulaic", unworthy of a thinking person's attention. What good does it do to change channels? On Fox, CNN and the other cable slots there is the same information without context, the usual bickering and pointless exchanges, and pervasive cynicism.

The cynicism of journalists is corrosive, as it continues to paint all political participants with the same dingy brush. George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, John Edwards: we're expected to treat them like characters in a soap opera. We scan them as we would the lines of a gossip column.

An academic, a friend of this writer, has said that repression seeks to unstring history. Contemporary repression validates this insight, as it purges voters from the rolls. And George W. Bush, with his cockeyed version of Republicanism, plays marionettes with a television news media that is either acquiescent and doting, lazy, or intimidated.

The media has news blackouts. A police riot in Miami (against anti-WTO protesters) in November, last year, was covered by Jeremy Scahill of Democracy Now! and by the British press; but on corporate television in the US there was nothing. The mayhem was covered by local, embedded reporters; and the punishment was inflicted by police cadres, dressed out like Robocop, and funded with federal anti-terror money. Freelance reporters with press badges and credentialed legal observers were arrested or treated roughly by the paramilitary force, as police unleashed a barrage of swinging truncheons, tear gas and rubber bullets.

Movie audiences have reacted with astonishment at screenings of Fahrenheit 9/11, watching scenes of mass protest at Bush's Inaugural. Sitting in darkened theatres, the crowd has absorbed a tide of recognition, a recovered history that seems to wash over them.

In these years after 9/11, there has been a profound, historical failure of America's television news media, and to a lesser extent, its mainstream print media. This corruption, deficiency, lack of attention, and cowering in the face of White House pressure is nothing less than a scandal. These journalists did not want this repression; on the contrary, there are signs that they are beginning to react to the inroads it has made. The tragedy is, that it has happened on their watch.

We will be able to breathe easier when Kerry takes office in January, and begins to serve as President. But we will be a long time dealing with the recklessness of this Bush Administration: the legacy of war and disaster, the pernicious ideology, the political divisiveness, the ineptitude. We should reflect on the long shadow cast by its repression; not merely the outbursts of street protest, of police and swinging batons, but the onslaught of repression that really degraded our democracy, and would have unstrung our history. This has been the work of a destructive Republican faction, and their figurehead, George W. Bush.

There are remedies available, to insure that the corruption of political life which we have lived through will never happen again. Serving political diversity and fairness in broadcasting is a crucial step to these reforms. A corporate consolidation of media must be stopped in its tracks and held in check by law. This solution is clearly available to the people. Conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are largely in agreement on this point. A reconstruction of the policies of the FCC is also in order: a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" to provide equal time to candidates of competing parties in Congressional and Presidential elections. Repression can be set in motion by a powerful or ascendant Party, when there is an institutional narrowing of public interests in the media, where some voices are being amplified and others excluded, or where public debate is being defined in a way that reduces political alternatives to a minimum.

Another Job--Outsourced

Just one of many breaking stories making the rounds in cyberspace. Tholos didn't break this story, but we are not too proud to pass it on.

In a message dated 8/2/2004 9:08:34 PM Central Daylight Time, holisticcpa@juno.com writes:

Washington DC - Congress today announced that the Office of President of the United States will be outsourced to overseas interests as of June 30th, the end of this fiscal year. The move is being made to save $400K a year in salary, a record $521 Billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead. "The cost savings will be quite significant" says Congressman Adam Smith (D-Wash) who, with the aid of the GAO (the General Accounting Office) has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively. "We simply can no longer afford this level of outlay and remain competitive in the world stage," Congressman Smith said.

Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of the termination of his position. He will receive health coverage, expenses and salary until his final day of employment. After that, with a two week waiting period, he will then be eligible for $240 dollars a week from unemployment insurance for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be able to receive state Medicaid health insurance coverage as his unemployment benefits are over the required limit. Preparations have been underway for some time for the job move.

Sanji Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will be assuming the Office of President of the United States as of July 1. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his parents were here on student visas, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month but with no health coverage or other benefits. Due to the time difference between the US and India, Mr. Singh will be working primarily at night, when offices of the US Government will be open.

"I am excited to serve in this position," Mr. Singh stated in an exclusive interview. "Working nights will let me keep my day job at the American Express call center. I always knew I could be President someday."

Congress stressed patience when calling Mr. Singh as he may not be fully aware of all the issues involved with his new position. A Congressional Spokesperson noted that Mr. Singh has been given a script tree to follow which will allow him to respond to most topics of concern. The Spokesperson further noted that "additional savings will be realized as these scripting tools have been successfully used by Mr. Bush and will enable Mr. Singh to provide an answer without having to fully understand the issue itself."

Mr. Bush has been offered the use of a Congressional Page to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Inc., the placement firm, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position as job prospects in the Sports Franchise Ownership arena remain limited. A recently released report from the Pentagon suggests a good prospect for him as a newly unemployed person may be in the Army National Guard. There he would be called up with his unit and stationed in Iraq, a country he has visited briefly before. "I've been there, I know all about Iraq and the conditions there," stated Mr. Bush. He gained invaluable knowledge of the country in his first visit at the Baghdad Airport non-smoking terminal and gift shop.

Meanwhile in Baghdad and Falluja, Iraq, sources report that local Iraqis say Mr. Bush would receive an especially warm reception from them. Such sources stated the Iraqis only request would be to be informed of which convoy he would be riding in order to give him the welcome he deserves. Congress continues to explore other outsourcing possibilities including that of Vice-president and most Cabinet positions.

BLOGGERS COME OF AGE AT DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION

Photograph: Tom Burka

ELECTION DOOMSDAY MACHINE

"During the Reagan era Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were key players in a clandestine program designed to set aside the legal lines of succession and immediately install a new "President" in the event that nuclear attack killed the country's leaders. The program helps explain the behavior of the Bush Administration on and after 9/11."

--James Mann, The Armageddon Plan, The Atlantic Monthly, March 2004

Campaign 2004 is underway in the middle of July; and with slightly more than a week till the Democratic Convention opens, the Bush Regime does a little more than is necessary to increase paranoia. The chief distraction is yet another official monologue about cancelling or postponing the November election, in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil. Is this an example of brinkmanship gone wrong? It seems like an off-balance game of Truth or Dare, but one that brings back the icy, Cold War grimace of Dr. Stangelove. It's a macabre American icon; and with its satiric comedy it is somehow much darker than Psycho, or even Apocalypse Now. Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the Universe"; but the Machiavellis in the White House find it none too daring to play dice with the Republic, or cast lots for the Planet.

"The fools!...the stupid fools!...THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE!"


George W. Bush is always the backstory in this Theatre of Good and Evil. Though not widely reported yet, the President has positioned seven carrier groups in the waters near Taiwan, alarming the Chinese enough to publicly commit themselves to a colossal naval build-up, that will encompass ten years of armament work. (Chalmers Johnson LA Times). No idle hands here. And during this hot and nervous summer, Bush's Homeland Security office is expounding on possible al-Qaida attacks on the assembled Democrats in Boston, later this month.

President Bush has named DeForest Soaries to head an Orwellian US Election Assistance Committee, whose paradoxical task is to oversee a cancelling or rescheduling of the November election, if there is a disruptive al-Qaida attack. CNN links to this Newsweek article by Michael Isikoff:

"Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge"..."and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections--as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives--has led analysts to conclude "they must want to interfere with the elections," says one official."..."Ridge's department"..."asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place."

Secretary Ridge underlines the terrorists' "capacity to succeed" and contrasts that with "the mistaken belief that their attacks will have an impact on America's resolve."

It's hard to imagine a process as diffuse as a national election, being administered individually by the states, across a huge geographic area, from tens of thousands of polling places, being put at any risk whatsoever. Since the administration of a national election and the competant tallying of its result are not seriously threatened; it is necessary, therefore, to look at the real motives for setting up an Election Assistance Committee and spreading all this eerie talk of "securing the election".

"The enemy is seeking to impurify our precious bodily fluids."

New York Times opinion writer, David Brooks, who speaks the Administration line on this issue, gives away a clue that motive is important. Here is the gist of it: Spanish voters could not be trusted to do the right thing, three days after the Madrid Bombing. According to Brooks, "it was crazy to go ahead with an election"..."reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable."

What Brooks fails to mention, is that the Spanish had other compelling reasons for ousting the Aznar government and installing Zapatero's Socialists; not the least of which was the Aznar government's deception, concerning the real perpetrators of the attack. The government was caught in a lie. The government knew that Islamic militants were responsible; but the people were betrayed and told that it was domestic terror, that Basque separatists had done it. From the Spanish point of view, this was one official arrogance too many. It also focused their attention on the fact that this was the same Aznar government that had taken Spain to war in Iraq against the wishes of the majority. The Spanish voted with political maturity, not cowardice; and it is slander to accuse them of being intimidated by the attack.

By the time National Security Advisor, Condi Rice, officially pooh-poohed the "election securing" talk, last Monday, the seeds of uneasiness had already been sown. But this is the typical "bait and switch" psychological war that is waged by the Bush Administration.

DeForest Soaries, the President's hand-picked Committee Man, had sown the wind alright. Soaries said, "Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America." [my emphasis] (Erica Werner--AP)

The Bush Posse seems to fear the impurifying of America's leadership. They don't want another Spain. Certainly it is more than just the turn of a phrase, when Bush calls himself the War President. War represents the most potent hold the President has on the nation's nerve-endings and anxieties. If, on the other hand, an attack were to expose the Achilles' Heel of this Administration; it would be because they have shortchanged Homeland Security, while placing all bets on the Iraq obsession. In the eyes of a dangerously messianic President, the nation's ambitions/interests are melded with a dogma of ideological and religious purity. In this case, however, Purity Of Essence does not equal Peace On Earth.

George W. Bush and his Neocons have so many Cold War skeletons in their closet, it would be best to step back quickly when opening the door. The Armageddon Plan, as explained by James Mann, is the prime example:

"Rumsfeld [CEO of G. D. Searle & Co] and [Congressman] Cheney were principal actors in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan Administration. Under it U.S. officials furtively carried out detailed planning exercises for keeping the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The program called for setting aside the legal rules for presidential succession in some circumstances, in favor of a secret procedure for putting in place a new "President" and his staff."

"The program is of particular interest today because it helps to explain the thinking and behavior of the second Bush Administration in the hours, days, and months after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

Cheney and Rumsfeld were prominent in these exercises as "team leaders". "Once the United States was (or believed itself to be) under nuclear attack, three teams would be sent from Washington to three different locations around the United States. Each team would be prepared to assume leadership of the country and would include a Cabinet member who was prepared to become President."

" "One of the awkward questions we faced", one participant in the planning explains, "was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them." For one thing, it was felt that reconvening Congress, and replacing the members who had been killed, would take too long. Moreover, if Congress did reconvene, it might elect a new speaker of the House [and, as per the Succession Act of 1947] [his] claim to the presidency might have greater legitimacy than that of a Secretary of Agriculture or Commerce who had been set up under Reagan's secret program."..."The Administration, however, chose to establish this process without going to Congress for the legislation that would have given it constitutional legitimacy."

Ronald Reagan established the continuity-of-government program with a secret executive order.

"After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet collapse, the rationale for the exercises changed"..."Finally, during the early Clinton years, it was decided that this scenario was farfetched and outdated"...There things stood until September 11, 2001, when Cheney and Rumsfeld suddenly began to act out parts of a script they had rehearsed years before."

Despite official assurances to the contrary, there is something sinister about backdoor approaches, like the U.S Election Assurance Committee, as well as the Administration's "chatter" about al-Qaida attacks on polling places. This static has its origin in the White House. It's a far cry from the truly Apocalyptic Cold War scenario of Superpower on Superpower, to the real world scenario of asymetric warfare with Islamic extremists.

Similarly, it is hoped that an ELECTION DOOMSDAY MACHINE, if it exists, will not be set off by an effort to untrigger it. The White House announces that it is not being cynical or manipulative by suggesting that al-Qaida would like to attack the assembled Democratic leadership, in Boston. "Just playing it safe", they say. It's the erratic, impulsive nature of this Administration that gives Americans pause. Since 9/11 they have behaved as if they had a mandate, rather than assuming office in a contested election. They act with a haughty, winner-take-all righteousness, and are one of the most politically divisive factions in the history of this country.

How great is the leap of imagination, after all?--from a policy of preventative war against nations which might possibly attack us?--to "securing an election" from voters who are possibly influenced by an attack on this nation's soil?

"[Cheney's and Rumsfeld's] participation in the extra-constitutional continuity-of-government exercises, remarkable in its own right, also demonstrates a broad, underlying truth about these two men. For three decades, from the Ford Administration onward, even when they were out of the executive branch of government, they were never far away. They stayed in touch with defense, military, and intelligence officials, who regularly called upon them. They were, in a sense, a part of the permanent hidden national-security apparatus of the United States." (Mann)

"Mein Fuhrer,...I can walk!"



Sources: digby, john emerson, soccerdad, and billmon

Image via indelible inc

MICHAEL MOORE WINS HEARTS, MINDS, AND VOTES

Nothing yet presented to the American people succeeds, as Fahrenheit 9/11 does, in showing the sociopathic disconnect between President Bush and his actions and their consequences. The audience reaction to this Michael Moore film reveals a hunger for this information; and people are touched in a way that great theatre, cinema, or poetry can sometimes touch them. Gasping, weeping, laughing, and crying out in amazement, they are swept by a range of emotions, transported from sight-gags and absurdist comedy to tragedy and loss.

Young people in Flint, Michigan compare the televised devastation of Iraq to parts of their economically gutted and ravaged Flint. Well-to-do Congressmen, cornered by Moore on the steps of the Capitol, don't risk receiving their dead from Iraq. George W. Bush, erratic and sometimes ridiculous, flits merrily along, unconcerned about black high school drop-outs in Flint, Michigan, or white kids in Appalachia who have nowhere else to go but the Army. President Bush openly woos "the haves and have-mores" and the Patriot Act sails through the House without so much as being read.

Moore's film stands head and shoulders above any of his previous work, because its power rests on profound recognitions. In this film we see a culture of death, the juxtaposition of destroyed bodies, Iraqi and American. We see the imposture of "the consent of the governed". Election Fraud 2000 and an American coup d'etat are revisited, including the spectacle of black disenfranchisement in Florida projected into the House of Representatives, a sad betrayal of democracy.

Other powerful themes seem to visibly rock the audience. Certainly, for many of the uninitiated, it is the sense that they have been robbed of a chunk of history, that is just now being returned to them. This replacement into consciousness of a crucial piece of history and narrative is cathartic.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, "The persuasiveness of a true work of art is completely irrefutable; it prevails even over a resisting heart". At 2 screenings of Moore's film I've heard people break down and sob. There were incredible gasps from the audience; there was a hush of attention with which people of all ages seemed to attend to Fahrenheit 9/11 and breathe it in.



"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite - I call you my base." --George W. Bush


Image via Michael Moore.

copeland morris ALSACE

After a stranger
Missing a hand taps on the table
You think of your mother, her tongue,
The rain announcing twilight.
She speaks of Alsace; her vowels careful,
Her teeth as straight as consonants.
Agile child who can outmaneuver
Flattery or bitterness
You listen closely.

SOLD-OUT THEATRES FOR FAHRENHEIT 9/11

Images via Michael Moore

THE BUSH WHO WOULD BE CAESAR

This is an excerpt from "Democracy itself is in danger", a speech
by Al Gore, the former US Vice President, given June 24, 2004, at Georgetown University for the American Constitution Society. The full text is at Salon. (It is necessary to click through an advert)



"James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, "The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

"[The founders} were greatly influenced -- far more than we can imagine -- by a careful reading of the history and human dramas surrounding the democracies of ancient Greece and the Roman republic. They knew, for example, that democracy disappeared in Rome when Caesar crossed the Rubicon in violation of the Senate's long prohibition against a returning general entering the city while still in command of military forces. Though the Senate lingered in form and was humored for decades, when Caesar impoliticly combined his military commander role with his chief executive role, the Senate -- and with it the Republic -- withered away."

"I am convinced that our founders would counsel us today that the greatest challenge facing our republic is not terrorism but how we react to terrorism, and not war, but how we manage our fears and achieve security without losing our freedom. I am also convinced that they would warn us that democracy itself is in grave danger if we allow any president to use his role as commander in chief to rupture the careful balance between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government. Our current president has gone to war and has come back into "the city" and declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war, which he says justifies his reinterpretation of the Constitution in ways that increase his personal power at the expense of Congress, the courts, and every individual citizen."

"So now, the president and the vice president are arguing with [the 9/11] commission, and they are insisting that the commission is wrong and they are right, and that there actually was a working cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida."

"The problem for the president is that he doesn't have any credible evidence to support his claim, and yet, in spite of that, he persists in making that claim vigorously"..."And I think it's particularly important because it is closely connected to the questions of constitutional power with which I began this speech."

"...it's so important particularly for President Bush to keep the American people from discovering that what he told them about the linkage between Iraq and al-Qaida isn't true. Among these Americans who still believe there is a linkage, there remains very strong support for the president's decision to invade Iraq. But among those who accept the commission's detailed finding that there is no connection, support for the war in Iraq dries up pretty quickly."

"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have decided to fight to the rhetorical death over whether or not there's a meaningful connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. They think that if they lose that argument and people see the truth, then they'll not only lose support for the controversial decision to go to war, but also lose some of the new power they've picked up from the Congress and the courts, and face harsh political consequences at the hands of the American people."

"As a result, President Bush is now intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein."

"If he is not lying, if they genuinely believe that, that makes them unfit in battle with al-Qaida. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge? Are they too dishonest or too gullible? Take your pick."

"And at least some honest voices within the president's own party admitted as (m)uch. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated war hero who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said point blank, "Saddam is not in league with al-Qaida ... I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida."

"But those voices did not stop the deliberate campaign to mislead America. Over the course of a year, the president and vice president used carefully crafted language to scare Americans into believing there was an imminent threat from an Iraq-armed al-Qaida."

"In the fall of 2002, the President told the country "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam."

"By the Spring, Secretary of State Powell was in front of the United Nations claiming a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network."

"So when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding "no credible evidence" of an Iraq-al-Qaida connection, it should not have caught the White House off guard. Yet instead of the candor Americans need and deserve from their leaders, there have been more denials and more insistence without evidence."

"The President was even more brazen. He dismissed all questions about his statements by saying "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida." He provided no evidence."

"Friends of the administration tried mightily to rehabilitate their cherished but shattered linkage. John Lehman, one of the Republicans on the commission, offered what sounded like new evidence that a Saddam henchman had attended an al-Qaida meeting. But within hours, the commissions files yielded definitive evidence that it was another man with a similar name -- ironically capturing the near-miss quality of Bush's entire symbolic argument."

"But the damage they have done to our country is not limited to misallocation of military economic political resources. Whenever a chief executive spends prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies, he damages the fabric of democracy, and the belief in the fundamental integrity of our self-government."

"That creates a need for control over the flood of bad news, bad policies and bad decisions also explains their striking attempts to control news coverage."

"The administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops." Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the president's consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, "Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the President ... you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation."

"The kinds of unnatural, undemocratic activities in which this administration has engaged, in order to aggrandize power, have included censorship of scientific reports, manipulation of budgetary statistics, silencing dissent, and ignoring intelligence. Although there have been other efforts by other presidents to encroach on the legitimate prerogatives of Congress and courts, there has never been this kind of systematic abuse of the truth and institutionalization of dishonesty as a routine part of the policy process."

"Two hundred and twenty years ago, John Adams wrote, in describing one of America's most basic founding principles, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them ... to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 OPENS FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2004

To find your local cinema click here

SAN FRANCISCO GALLERY OWNER HURT BY RIGHT-WING THUG

Until recently, Lori Haigh had been the owner of Capobianco Gallery, located on San Francisco's Powell Street. Ms. Haigh was faced with two weeks of escalating vandalism outside the gallery, verbal abuse and hate messages in her e-mail. She had been singled out for this hate campaign because of a painting on display: The Abuse, by Guy Colwell, which shows 3 hooded prisoners, hooked up to wires, being tormented by American soldiers.

Ryan Kim, writing for The San Francisco Chronicle, has described the unfolding events:

"Two days after the painting went up, Haigh arrived at her gallery to find broken glass, eggs and trash strewn outside her storefront."

[At another time], "a man walked into the gallery and spat in Haigh's face."

Haigh contemplated giving up the gallery that had been her dream for so long; and on a Tuesday she shut down the place in order to take time to think things over.

"Just two days later, another man knocked on the door of the gallery and punched Haigh in the face, knocking her out, breaking her nose and causing a concussion."

" "I'm disheartened and disappointed," said Haigh, "I don't want to have a gallery if I can't show artists like Guy Colwell"."

Fenimore Cooper's Daily covered the closing of the Capobianco. "A U-haul truck was loaded with the gallery's artwork, including Guy Colwell's, whose painting of American soldiers abusing prisoners is the eye of this hurricane"..."It was heartening to see all the people show up to support the owner Lori Haigh"..."The sidewalk was overflowing with supporters. A gentleman spoke to everyone"..."After the impromptu speech, Ms. Haigh herself came out the front door. Her nose was bandaged; she seemed dazed."

"Ms. Haigh made no speech, merely worked her way through the crowd and was whisked off in a car. Everyone applauded for her courage."

This kind of bitter attack against artists, or those who sponsor art, should raise the antenna of every thoughtful person. Journalist David Neiwert calls this kind of assault proto-fascist thuggery.
.

Simone Weil has written these thoughts on evil:

"Evil is license and that is why it is monotonous: everything is
drawn from ourselves."

"We are obliged to imitate the act of creation, and there are two
possible imitations--the one real and the other apparent--preserving
and destroying.
There is no trace of "I" in the act of preserving. There is in that
of destroying. The "I" leaves its mark on the world as it destroys."

"A hurtful act is the transference to others of the degradation which
we bear in ourselves. That is why we are inclined to commit such acts
as a way of deliverance." (Gravity & Grace, p. 119, 123)

This appeared in J.K. Dineen's article of June 3, 2004, in The San Francisco Examiner:

"In a related development, the owner of another North Beach art gallery--Live Worms Gallery on Grant Avenue--said someone has made a veiled threat against his gallery as well. Owner Kevin Brown said a man walked into his gallery and engaged him in debate about the Capobianco attacks and the Iraq war in general. On his way out, he said, "you're next", according to Brown."


The Abuse by Guy Colwell




Sources via Orcinus

DEJA-VIETNAM ALL OVER AGAIN

Fewer Americans would be able to sleep well at night, if they suspected the Bush Administration of making preparations to bring back the draft. Conscription for military service was halted in 1973 as America ended its war in Vietnam. But this process is being revived, according to Congress.org:

"$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005." This source also reports that, "The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide."

The Guardian has also picked up on this story. John Sutherland writes, "All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that-getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline."

The armed services committees are responsible for both the Senate bill (S 89) and House version (HR 163), which are in committee and classified as active.

Of course, a fierce public outcry follows any public mention of re-activating the draft. Although 3 out of 4 Americans strongly reject the idea of conscription, the deck seems to be stacked against public opinion. It wouldn't be the first time government turned against the will of the people. But this is, after all, a matter of our flesh and blood.

But what is being cranked up in the background is nothing less than war on the level of nation states; and it must mean more wars and more occupation. Instead of a logical focus on international police activity and some special forces military to co-ordinate against al-Qaida, we have a unilateral agenda, an almost depraved aggregation of power in the hands of US leaders, that can only disturb and destabilize the international community.

Neither Bush, nor Kerry for that matter, seem interested in talking about this. No one wants this issue shaken loose as an "October Surprise". This is something to be hushed up, and later served to the American people as a fait accompli.

Compared to Vietnam era experiences, dodging the draft will be more difficult.

"In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration" which could be used to keep would-be draft-dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of the current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year." (Congress.org)

It is reasonable to add that Canada might not honor this "border declaration" with respect to draft resisters, since this is an eventuality that was not contemplated within the arrangement. Canada has been decisive in the past, and has granted shelter to people of conscience.

Thanks to Mitch from the comment area at Whiskey Bar, here is an excerpt from Daniel Ellsberg's Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, pp 141-142.

"On the return flight to Washington a week later, as we got near the end of the journey, McNamara called me to the rear of the plane, where he was standing with Bob Komer, who was still special assistant to the president coordinating Washington efforts on pacification. McNamara said, "Dan, you're the one who can settle this. Komer here is saying that we've made a lot of progress in pacification. I say things are worse than they were a year ago. What do you say?"

I said, "Well, Mr. Secretary, I'm most impressed with how much the same things are as they were a year ago. They were pretty bad then, but I wouldn't say it was worse now, just about the same."

McNamara said triumphantly, "That proves what I'm saying! We've put more than a hundred thousand more troops into the country over the last year, and there's been no improvement. Things aren't any better at all. That means the underlying situation is really worse! Isn't that right?"

I said, "Well, you could say that. It's an interesting way of seeing it."

Just then the plane began to go into a turn and the pilot announced, "Gentlemen, we are approaching Andrews Air Force Base. Please take your seats and fasten your seat belts."

Ten minutes later we were on the ground, and McNamara was descending the ladder with us behind him. It was a foggy morning, and there was an arc of television lights and cameras set up at the spot the plane had taxied to. In the center of the arc, there was a podium covered with microphones. McNamara strode over to the mikes and said to the crowd of reporters, "Gentlemen, I've just come back from Vietnam, and I'm glad to be able to tell you that we're showing great progress in every dimension of our effort. I'm very encouraged by everything I've seen and heard on my trip. . . ."."


Remember history. Remember. Lest we repeat it.