Tom Toles: Testing For Appeasement

Boom Boom Boom: Jesse Helms Is Dead

Jesse Helms is dead.

Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina Senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86.
...

Mr. Helms was known for taking on anyone, even leaders of his own party, who strayed from his idea of ideological purity.

It's hard to imagine how we'll survive without him.

David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said recently that Mr. Helms’s contribution to the conservative movement was “incredibly important.”

For one thing, he said, Mr. Helms was alert to technological change, especially the importance of direct mail, and readily signed fund-raising letters that helped conservative organizations get started.

Mr. Helms was also instrumental in keeping Mr. Reagan’s presidential campaign alive in 1976 when it was broke and limping after a series of defeats in the Republican primaries.

And in the Senate, Mr. Keene said, Mr. Helms was a rallying point for conservatives. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he supported Mr. Reagan on issues like aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. “Without Jesse, it would have been hard for Reagan to hold the line,” he said.

Who will help the president "hold the line" now?

Who will make sure he retains the power to commit war crimes against foreign countries, even while the law of the land forbids it?

Oh, sorry. That problem's been solved already.

Carry on.

He later led an ill-fated attempt to take over CBS, exhorting conservatives to buy up stock in order to stop what he saw as a liberal bias in its news reporting.

He was also well known for holding up votes on treaties and appointments to win a point. His willingness to block the business of the Senate or the will of Presidents earned him the sobriquet “Senator No” — a label he relished.

In campaigns and in the Senate, Mr. Helms stood out in both his words and his tactics.

He fought bitterly against Federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.

And so on. Nice guy. A really nice guy. And the good citizens of North Carolina just kep' on electin' 'im. Thanks, folks.

Trailing in a tough re-election fight in 1990 against a black opponent, Harvey Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, Mr. Helms unveiled a nakedly racial campaign ad in which a pair of hands belonging to a white job-seeker crumpled a rejection slip as an announcer explained that the job had been given to an unqualified member of a minority. Mr. Helms went on to victory.

In 1994, angered at President Clinton, Mr. Helms suggested in print that if Mr. Clinton was to visit North Carolina, “He’d better bring a bodyguard.” He later said the remark had been “a mistake.”

A more "liberal" Senator wouldn't be allowed to make such "mistakes" without a massive media campaign to smear him. But of course Jesse Helms didn't have to worry about such things because he'd been part of the "conservative" group that had already purchased the services of the national media.

His bruising style and right-wing politics won him many friends in his home state and across the nation, but he also created a legion of enemies. Millions of dollars were raised outside North Carolina both from those who flocked to his ideological banner and from those who ached to see him defeated. He never won more than 55 percent of the vote in five campaigns for the Senate.

“He was a very polarizing politician,” said Ferrell Guillory, a veteran North Carolina journalist. “He was not a consensus builder. He didn’t want everybody to vote for him. He just wanted enough.”

He was the sort of politician who likes to blame the increasing "polarization" of the electorate on others. And he didn't mind telling you who he blamed, either:

“Look carefully into the faces of the people participating,” he said in a 1968 editorial against anti-Vietnam war protests. “What you will see, for the most part, are dirty, unshaven, often crude young men and stringy-haired awkward young women who cannot attract attention any other way.”

You had enough of this? Me too.

Sayonara, Jesse.

Boom, Boom, Boom.

Nation's Worst Polluter Thumbs Nose At Law, With White House Approval

The country's worst polluter has refused to accept the legally binding orders from the agency in charge of cleaning up polluted sites. And it has happened with full approval of the White House.

Lyndsey Layton reports for the Washington Post

Pentagon Fights EPA On Pollution Cleanup

The Defense Department, the nation's biggest polluter, is resisting orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up Fort Meade and two other military bases where the EPA says dumped chemicals pose "imminent and substantial" dangers to public health and the environment.

The Pentagon has also declined to sign agreements required by law that cover 12 other military sites on the Superfund list of the most polluted places in the country. The contracts would spell out a remediation plan, set schedules, and allow the EPA to oversee the work and assess penalties if milestones are missed.

The actions are part of a standoff between the Pentagon and environmental regulators that has been building during the Bush administration, leaving the EPA in a legal limbo as it addresses growing concerns about contaminants on military bases that are seeping into drinking water aquifers and soil.

Under executive branch policy, the EPA will not sue the Pentagon, as it would a private polluter. Although the law gives final say to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson in cleanup disputes with other federal agencies, the Pentagon refuses to recognize that provision. Military officials wrote to the Justice Department last month to challenge EPA's authority to issue the orders and asked the Office of Management and Budget to intervene.

Experts in environmental law said the Pentagon's stand is unprecedented.

But what else would one expect?

"This is stunning," said Rena Steinzor, who helped write the Superfund laws as a congressional staffer and now teaches at the University of Maryland Law School and is president of the nonprofit Center for Progressive Reform. "The idea that they would refuse to sign a final order -- that is the height of amazing nerve."

Pentagon officials say they are voluntarily cleaning up the three sites named in the EPA's "final orders" -- Fort Meade in Maryland, Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.

Fort Meade borders residential areas in fast-growing Anne Arundel County; Tyndall and McGuire are in less-populated regions. At all three sites, the military has released toxic chemicals -- some known to cause cancer and other serious health problems -- into the soil and groundwater.

But the EPA has been dissatisfied with the extent and progress of the Pentagon's voluntary efforts.

"Final orders" are the EPA's most potent enforcement tool. If a polluter does not comply, the agency usually can go to court to force compliance and impose fines up to $28,000 a day for each violation.

But none of tools usually used to force compliance are available this time. So sad.

Cleanup agreements drafted by the EPA for the 12 other sites contain "extensive provisions" that the Pentagon finds unacceptable, officials said.

Well let's just do whatever the Pentagon finds acceptable, then. And get it over with.

It Might Work: Democrats Bribe Obama To Tell More Comforting Lies

Bob Fertik of donkeys dot com has started an escrow fund for Barack Obama; it's a form of conditional delayed support [read: bribery].

The catch: Obama won't be able to get the money until he starts sounding like a "progressive", rather than continuing to reveal himself as a "moderate" "centrist" imperialist warmonger.

Fertik says he wants to put a million dollars on the table and see if that changes Obama's opinions.

The money might not sway any of Obama's opinions, and it certainly won't change his agenda in any way; but it might get him to start telling more comforting lies.

And -- sadly -- that's all it would take to ensure the unwavering support of all the donkeys who consider themselves progressive ... and who thereby render real progress impossible.

The Future Of Personal Transportation In America

Here's a glimpse of the future, from Emily Wax and Ria Sen in the Washington Post. I've added some photos and a few comments.

"Fuel Prices Boost Cause of S. Asia's Maligned Rickshaw".

The bicycle rickshaws that weave through New Delhi's narrow lanes have long been scorned by authorities here for congesting the city's already fierce traffic. The creaking carriages crawl alongside luxury sedans, book hawkers, horse-drawn carts, hulking buses and cows.

In this city and the other quickly modernizing capitals of South Asia, governments have called the rickshaws backward, embarrassing symbols of the Third World.

Now, however, in a time of $7-a-gallon fuel in New Delhi and growing concerns about pollution, environmental activists and transportation experts are pushing back against rickshaw critics. And rickshaw cyclists are seizing the moment to tout the virtues of their trade.

"My rickshaw is my life. It's very cheap for my passengers," said Saurabh Ganguly, a 27-year-old rickshaw cyclist whose shirt was sticky with dirt and grime. He proudly observed a knot of traffic where about 50 rickshaw cyclists were jangling their bells, pressing their horns and zigzagging past lumbering buses belching plumes of black soot. "We don't even pollute," Ganguly said. "We should be allowed to survive."

Survival has been tenuous for bicycle rickshaws here. Last year, New Delhi banned them in the old walled neighborhood known as Chandni Chowk, one of the capital's most ancient and crowded shopping bazaars, as well as on main roads. While the ban has not been aggressively enforced, rickshaw cyclists say they often pay bribes to keep working.

The rich get richer and the poor pay bribes to keep working.

An international nonprofit group, the Initiative for Transportation and Development Policy, challenged the ban in India's Supreme Court this month, saying current economic and environmental conditions have made rickshaws more necessary than ever.

"We must save the cycle rickshaw drivers. Look at the soaring fuel price hikes," said Nalin Sinha, program director for the group's New Delhi office.

"These bikes are wonderful alternatives. They provide an affordable, smog-free choice," Sinha said. "But unfortunately, when the whole world is talking about the environment, we in South Asia are talking about 'development.' We somehow think we are better if we have hordes of swanky cars."

We're even worse: we think we're better if we have hordes of junk!

There is anecdotal evidence that ridership has increased in some South Asian cities as customers look to save on transportation costs. Sinha said his group is studying the issue.

New Delhi's Center for Science and Environment is also pushing for the court to overturn the ban in Chandni Chowk. The group has pointed to increases in the city's pollution and in the number of children with asthma, blaming the growing number of motor vehicles. India's economic boom is adding nearly 1,000 cars a day to the capital's streets.

"We should be building bike lanes to provide the cycle rickshaws a humane driving area for many reasons. Let's face it, fuel prices are only getting higher, and here we have an alternative right in front of us," said Vivek Chattopadhyaya, the center's pollution researcher. "If we keep banning them, we will regret this in future generations."

Some activists in India cite the increasing number of bicycle rickshaws being used in cities such as London, Paris, New York and Washington, often in neighborhoods with high congestion and heavy foot traffic. Local governments have welcomed the rickshaws as environmentally friendly alternatives.

Here's a situation where it makes perfect sense to "think global, act local". Want to do something for the environment? Sell your SUV, buy a rickshaw, and get an honest job for a change!!

There are an estimated 600,000 bicycle rickshaws in New Delhi serving an estimated 4 million customers. Trips range from one to six miles. The rickshaws -- many festooned with flowers and tricked out with paintings of cartoonish Bollywood starlets and cricket stars -- usually charge less than 50 cents a trip. On a recent monsoon-drenched afternoon, two female college students shopping for jeans said they were taking a bicycle rickshaw as an alternative to increasingly pricey taxis and auto-rickshaws, also powered by gas.

Indian women and children tend to take bicycle rickshaws more often than men because the rickshaws are seen as safe compared with overstuffed buses and unknown taxi drivers.

"We love the peaceful and private ride and the breeze," said Shweta Goyal, 19, an English literature major, as she settled in for a ride. "I like that the price is never impacted by fuel hikes. To me, it's a lovely way to do some shopping as a woman."

In Bangladesh's traffic-clogged capital of Dhaka, where there have been widespread protests over the rising prices of rice and fuel, rickshaw cyclist Shamsul Haque said business has never been better.

We could use some widespread protests ourselves. And some widespread rickshaws.

"There's been a turning point suddenly," said Haque, 25, a father of two who moved from a rural area to get a job as a rickshaw cyclist. "Our customers know we are cheap and very friendly."

Cheap and very friendly? Not me; I'm just cheap.

Some government officials have a different view.

"The rickshaws are popular in the walled old city like Chandni Chowk, but they can lead to large amounts of congestion," said Pawan Khera, secretary to the chief minister of New Delhi. "It's also not so easy for them since there are so many different kinds of motorized traffic on the roads."

It's not so easy for them because of the polluting traffic that's stopped in their way. So let's ban them. That'll make it easier for them!!

Khera said cycle rickshaws will always have a place around the city, but perhaps only in certain areas. New Delhi, meanwhile, is working to curb pollution by expanding the metro rail system and requiring new buses to run on compressed natural gas.

On a recent day in Chandni Chowk, rickshaw cyclists could be seen sweating and straining as they conveyed passengers through the city. Amid the chaotic lanes lined with sellers of Rajasthani slippers, fresh lime soda and incense, a few sari shoppers loaded stacks of wedding clothes onto one rusty old rickshaw. Their fare would be a quarter of what it would cost to drive or take a taxi.

"We do a proper job for everyone," lamented Mohammed Avip, 35, a rickshaw cyclist nearby. "Why does the police and government harass us so?"

Maybe they just need somebody to harass, somebody from whom to extract bribes.

Did Mohammed Avip ever think of that? Did you?

When our mechanized civilization is all over except the crying, before the radiation poisoning has killed absolutely everybody, wheels will still roll and people will still roll them.

Prepare yourself or not; it's your choice.

But don't say I didn't warn you.

Ronald Swerlein Pleads Guilty To Three Of Ten Explosives Charges; Plea Bargain Will Likely Keep Amateur Rocket Scientist Out Of Prison

Ronald Swerlein, an amateur rocket enthusiast from Longmont, Colorado, pleaded guilty last week to three counts of illegal possession of explosives, in a deal which seems likely to keep him out of prison.

He had been charged with ten counts of possession of explosives; he pleaded not guilty to those charges last December.

He had also been charged with one count of drug possession; that charge has been dismissed.

Swelein has been free on bond since shortly after his arrest, and he remains free pending his sentencing, which is scheduled for August 8th.

If the judge accepts the agreement that has been reached between the prosecutors and Swerlein's attorney, Swerlein will face six years of probation, community service and a mental health check.

Ron Swerlein was an electrical engineer with a half a dozen patents to his name when he suffered career-ending injuries in a car accident. Unable to work, but still curious and inventive, Swerlein turned to an old hobby: chemistry. He started buying glassware and chemicals from internet suppliers, and synthesizing compounds he couldn't buy.

Swerlein could make virtually anything he wanted, apparently, including nitroglycerin.

He tested some of these compounds as potential rocket fuels, lighting small amounts of various mixtures to see how they would burn. Sometimes his fuels would burn too fast, causing a small explosion. It's not the sort of thing you normally see in a house, in a residential area, across the street from an elementary school. Some of the neighbors were concerned.

Eventually, after an unexpected explosion in the house, Swerlein moved his center of operations to his garage. There he would test potential fuels late at night, and into the wee hours -- and causing a wee explosion every now and then.

Some of his neighbors called the police, who sent a patrol car to sit and listen in the neighborhood, but the police never saw or heard any explosions, so nothing came of the neighbors' concern, initially.

Some time later, somebody else in Longmont thought it would be funny to pack some shells with gunpowder and scatter them in parking lots, where they might explode if stepped on or driven over. The police asked for help in locating any bomb-makers in the area, and once again Swerlein's neighbors mentioned the strange goings-on at his place.

This time police did a more serious investigation, which involved looking through Swerlein's garbage and culminated in a tear-gas assault on his house.

The bomb squad detonated the nitroglycerin in Swerlein's driveway, and the police took everything else that interested them. Most of the chemicals, they say, have since been destroyed.

Police have never considered Ron Swerlein a terrorist or even a potential terrorist, and his actions seem to bear out their opinion. He had made enough nitroglycerin to fuel a car-bomb, but he kept tinkering with various fuel mixtures, sometimes disturbing the peace in his sleeping neighborhood, but never hurting anybody.

A few times he even tested a fuel with a model rocket, launching it in his backyard and seeing with a thrill that it rose above his rooftop. Not a particularly severe menace to society.

The sentence Swerlein will likely receive seems fairer to me than his treatment by the police, or his treatment by the Colorado media, at least one of which printed false comments from a so-called expert who said the compounds Swelein was testing were never used in model rocketry.

Personally, I am glad to see Ron Swerlein avoid serving prison time, especially since it's so clear that he never intended to hurt anyone.

But I wonder, what if his name were Abdullah or Mohammed? What if he had brown skin, or spoke a foreign language, or read the Koran? Would he have been treated as fairly as this?

One would hope so.

~~~

eighth in a series

Subtle: Candidates Exploit Our Fears, But Not Too Baldly

There's been some interesting fallout from Charlie Black's assertion that a terrorist attack against America "would be a big advantage" for John McCain [photo], the candidate for whom Black strategizes.

Black's frank admission set off alarm bells for those who believe it would be easy for such an attack to be made to happen (on purpose, as it were).

In addition to alarm bells, Black's comment has stirred up some of the finest doublethink you're likely to find (until the next time you read a mainstream "news" article about this subject, or anything else). I had fun watching Michael Cooper tie himself up in knots in the New York Times:

In Balancing Act on National Security, a Stumble

It was the journalist Michael Kinsley who changed Washington’s understanding of gaffes with his observation that a gaffe occurs not when someone lies, but when they say what they really think.

All the remarkable moments in modern politics have come when somebody accidentally told the truth. This tells us something about how often they lie.

And more than a few politicians and pundits were put in mind of the classic Kinsleyian gaffe this week after Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Senator John McCain, was quoted in a magazine interview saying that another terrorist attack in the United States would “be a big advantage” for Mr. McCain in the upcoming election.

Whether such an attack would work in favor of McCain is debatable; there are several possibilities and Michael Cooper can't even list them (if he wants to keep his job). But there can't be any question that it's dangerous when a senior adviser to a presidential candidate thinks a terrorist attack would help his candidate.

In recent years we've been treated to barrage of nonsense -- embodied in phrases like "the criminalization of politics" -- sanctifying the notion that politicians are above the law, or that politics is war and therefore all's fair.

So to have a major politician whose strategic adviser thinks a terrorist attack would be a big advantage ... is not only very dangerous ... but it's far too honest a thing to say, isn't it?

McCain thinks so.

Mr. McCain immediately disavowed the remark on Monday, saying: “I cannot imagine why he would say it. It’s not true.” And Mr. Black quickly announced that he “deeply” regretted the remark. But on some level Mr. Black’s assertion was the logical extension — if somewhat tackily and impoliticly expressed — of the McCain campaign’s premise that Mr. McCain is best suited to keep the nation safe from terror.

And this is exactly the point. No matter what happens, whether there's a terrorist attack or not [or two], both candidates will strive to portray themselves as best able to fight terrorists.

Making that case, of course, can be a balancing act, the challenge being how to position Mr. McCain as the candidate who will keep people safe without seeming to be baldly exploiting people’s fears — a balance that has not always been struck in recent political campaigns.

The problem, as you can see Michael Cooper struggling not to spell out, is how to keep exploiting people’s fears without seeming to do so baldly.

The Obama campaign struck back hard, questioning the premise that the Republicans who favored invading Iraq have expertise in fighting terrorism and labeling Mr. Black’s remark as part of a “cynical and divisive brand of politics.”

The really interesting question -- the question that's never asked -- is whether the Republicans are more interested in fighting terrorism or fomenting it. But of course it would be cynical and divisive to ask it, so don't expect to hear it from Obama anytime soon.

Instead, through his chosen mouthpiece, he takes a different tack:

“The fact that John McCain’s top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change,” Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama, said in a statement. “Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda.”

Well, of course, saying a terrorist attack would be good for your candidate is cynical and divisive. But it's not nearly as cynical and divisive as staging one. And that's a balance that hasn't always been struck, either.

On the other hand, Obama says he wants "to finish the fight against al Qaeda", and that's some pretty macho talk, but it's a big problem too, because so far he hasn't shown any understanding -- or even any curiosity -- about what al Qaeda is ... or isn't!

And -- not to put too bald a point on it -- there are only two things that that could "unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda".

One of them, of course, would be a large-scale "terrorist" attack. But rather than helping McCain or Obama, such an attack may merely serve as a pretext for the cancellation of the election. So it would be a risky card to play, even for an old shark like Charlie Black.

There's another way in which a sharp and honest president could possibly "unite" the nation and "finish" the war against al Qaeda, but it definitely won't happen, because it involves serious education.

I'm referring, of course, to a large-scale campaign to inform the American public about exactly what al Qaeda is, who created it, who sponsors it, and whose policy aims it serves.

In other words, a progressive and honest president might require his fellow citizens to take a break from their standard television fare and watch -- no! study! -- a BBC documentary called "The Power of Nightmares". Here's an excerpt:

Big Dog, Little Tail / It's Too Late

Here's Chris Floyd, from his backup site, Empire Burlesque 1.0, in full and with kind permission:

I.
Let's be clear about one thing: Israel will not attack Iran without the full knowledge and approval of the United States government. The trigger of the "warning shot" of Israel's long-range air-strike exercise last week was actually pulled in Washington. The Israelis will not force or deceive the U.S. government into an attack on Iran; that attack – which grows more certain by the hour – will take place because America's bipartisan foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex (to the extent that there is any real difference between the two) want it to happen, or are willing to let it happen.

It is of course an article of faith for some people that the Israeli tails wags the big American dog. This rather ludicrous assertion is nothing more than the pernicious doctrine of "American exceptionalism" tricked out in "dissident" drag. For its underlying assumption is that good ole true-blue American elites would never commit war crimes or seek empire and geopolitical dominion unless they had somehow been tricked into it by those wily Jews. This is exactly backwards. If Israel was of no use to the American elite's domination agenda, then it would be discarded, or at least downgraded in terms of military, economic and diplomatic support.

When a nation serves the American elite's interests well, it is rewarded, and its various shortcomings are overlooked, however egregious they might be. Saudi Arabia is a prime example. Egypt is another. Iraq is a negative example. When Saddam's regime was thought useful, it was supported, copiously. When Saddam was no longer useful – especially when he threatened the Bush Family's long-time business partners in Kuwait – then he became "a new Hitler." When Iran was governed by a tyrant friendly to Washington, it was lauded – and larded with the usual military support and diplomatic muscle. When unfriendly tyrants took over, Iran became a land of Persian devils. The list of such examples from American history goes on and on.

If Israel had, say, opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it would have found itself shorn of much of its American largess very quickly. Israel is in fact almost entirely dependent on the United States for its military and economic well-being; in return it gives unstinting support to the interests of the American elite. It is in many ways one of the most abject client states in the world today, outside of Iraq or Afghanistan. The fact that there is a convergence of interests and ideology between militarist elites in the United States and Israel is hardly surprising. It would only be surprising if this were not the case. And so we see a cross-pollination of ideas, strategies, techniques, technologies – and even, in some cases, personnel (e.g. the "Clean Break" group) – between these elites.

For the same reasons, we also see a strong "Jewish Lobby" in the United States. For although those lobbying organizations do not actually represent the viewpoint of the majority of American Jews, they do offer unwavering support to the American elite's domination agenda. These organizations – like Israel itself – also serve as useful stalking horses and lightning rods. In the first instance, they can stake out radical positions which would be too impolitic for America's governing elite to espouse too openly. In the second instance, they can always be conveniently blamed for "radicalizing" or "duping" the American elite if one of the latter's schemes for loot and dominion go wrong. And of course they can be used to punish domestic politicians who fail to hew slavishly enough to the elite's imperial line. But if AIPAC came out tomorrow with, say, a demand that America dismantle its worldwide empire of military bases, or condemned the invasion of Iraq as a war crime, we would see its influence decline almost instantly. Again, it is the convergence of interests with the American elite, and their willingness to serve those interests, that give the government of Israel and non-representative organizations like AIPAC such a prominent role.

For example, AIPAC has played the stalking horse in helping push Resolution 362, the "Iran War Resolution," toward its virtually guaranteed passage by the House. The bill – supported by the usual broad spectrum of the "bipartisan foreign policy establishment" – calls for, among other things, a full blockade of Iran. This is of course an outright act of war, and one aimed directly and purposely at the Iranian people, who would be subjected to the same kind of treatment that left at least a million Iraqis dead during the many years of American-led, bipartisan sanctions against Saddam's regime. This fact – an impending act of war that could inflict untold suffering upon millions of innocent people, even before the first shot is fired – does not seem to trouble anyone in the American establishment, nor in the "progressive blogosphere."

Arthur Silber has a few choice words on this situation here, including:

In the fearsome, awful, terrifying wake of an attack on Iran, as the economy crumbles, as violence spreads throughout the Middle East, Asia and possibly elsewhere, as life falls apart in the United States, do you think anyone will give a damn about FISA? Do you think anyone will even remember FISA? Do you doubt that the government will seize and utilize powers that will make FISA look like child's play? Do you doubt that the government will do all this with the active, eager participation of the Democrats?

II.
The stated casus belli in the "Iran War Resolution" – which replicates exactly the bellicose intentions and deceptions of the Bush Administration – is Iran's "nuclear enrichment activities." This is presented as an unmitigated evil worthy of the most severe measures, including an act of war like a blockade. The truth, of course, is that these enrichment activities are entirely legal under international treaties governing nuclear proliferation, and are being carried out under the most extensive and stringent international supervision ever imposed on a nation, as Kaveh Afrasiabi notes in the Asia Times. Afrasiabi also details the rank falsehoods about Iran's nuclear programme, and the international inspection program overseeing it, that permeate the American media:

...in an article in The Wall Street Journal, US Congresswoman Jane Harman, who chairs the powerful Homeland Security Intelligence Committee, cites Iran's steady progress in installing new centrifuges and the dangers posed by "unsupervised, weapons-grade material" in Tehran's hands.

Never mind that IAEA reports clearly confirm that all of Iran's enrichment-related facilities are under the agency's "containment and monitoring", or that IAEA inspectors have had nine "unannounced visits" at the enrichment facility in Natanz since March 2007.

Thus, for instance, in a front-page article in the New York Times, dated June 20, Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt break the sensational news about Israel's extensive maneuvers in preparation for an attack on Iran, indirectly rationalizing Israel's belligerency by omitting any mention of the IAEA's latest report confirming the absence of any evidence of military nuclear diversion and, instead, confining themselves to the following comment: "In late May, the IAEA reported that Iran's suspected work on nuclear matters was a 'matter of serious concern' and that the Iranians owed the agency 'substantial explanation'."

What ought to have been added was that the same IAEA report states unequivocally that it had received "no credible information" regarding the alleged "weaponization studies", nor has the agency detected any nuclear activity connected to those alleged studies. Besides, the same IAEA report more than a dozen times stresses the evidence of peacefulness of Iran's nuclear program...

To turn to another example of flawed coverage of Iran by the US media, a recent editorial in the Dallas News states categorically that the IAEA "has recently accused Iran of developing its program of enriching uranium". The editors appear unaware that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory, does not prohibit Iran's uranium-enrichment program.

The IAEA has never declared Iran in material breach of its obligations and, certainly, has never "accused" Iran of pursuing a program sanctioned under the NPT. Rather, the governing board of the IAEA has simply requested from Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear program as a "confidence-building measure", that is, as a time-bound and thus temporary "legally non-binding" step.

As Sam Gardiner notes, Bush and his minions are now pounding the "enrichment" theme as their chief drumbeat for war with Iran. And they have obviously succeeded in demonizing the entirely legal and carefully supervised process of enrichment, as demonstrated by the Congressional resolution and the press coverage, both of which also take up "enrichment" as an evil that must be stopped at all costs.

No doubt this is in response to the IAEA reports noted by Afrasiabi, which have found no credible information about "weaponization studies." (And those are just studies, mind you, not actual weaponization programs.) This is of course not the first time that the Bush Administration has moved the goalposts in its fearmongering campaign. As we noted here last December, just after the Administration's own intelligence agencies declared that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program, Bush announced that

Iran will not be "allowed" to acquire even the "scientific knowledge" required to build a nuclear weapon. Previous "red lines" which could trigger an attack had been based on Iran actually building a weapon; now even nibbling at the forbidden fruit of nuclear knowledge could serve as "justification" for a "pre-emptive strike" to quell the "danger." After all, as Bush rather illiterately told reporters, "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" Better safe than sorry, right?

And at the very least, moving the goalposts in this manner will allow the Bush Regime to portray Iran as a dangerous, defiant menace for merely carrying on with its fully legal nuclear power program, as authorized by international treaty and monitored by the IAEA. Thus no matter what Iran actually does – or doesn't do – the Bushists will continue to use the "Persian menace" as fodder for the imperial war machine.

We see this playing out again today, in the scary talk – and Congressional resolutions – damning Iran's "enrichment activities." What was true then is true now: there is literally nothing that Iran can do – or not do – to divert the American elite's desire to strike at their land and bring it under domination. And apparently there is nothing that anyone in America with any power or a major platform will do to stop it either.

Arthur Silber concludes his damning analysis of our unforced march to new horror with a heartbreaking quote from Martin Luther King Jr. Let it serve as the last word here as well; no one will put it better:

There is such a thing as being too late.... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity.... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late."

Indeed. Arthur Silber often screams at the progressive blogosphere: "Why won't you do anything about this?" The big "liberal", "progressive" sites seem determined to avoid the issues on which they could do the most good. It's hard for me to imagine that this is unintentional. And I know this from heartbreaking experience.

What's needed, according to Arthur Silber, is "massive civil disobedience, including a sit-in of a minimum of several hundred thousand people shutting down Washington, D.C. completely", presenting a spectacle the media cannot avoid covering, threatening to shut the federal government down entirely, and holding the fort until more arrive. It's a lovely vision, but I'm not fortunate enough to share it.

Last summer there were a half a million people on the ground in Washington and the media barely gave them a peep. The "Active Denial" heat-ray crowd-control weapon is ready now and it provides a formidable long-distance supplement to the water cannons and pepper spray of old. Throw in the synthetic insects, and it's hard to see how even a couple million people could be a serious threat.

As if you could get them there. As if you could get them interested.

After the 2004 presidential election was obviously and blatantly stolen, I sat up all night leaving messages on all the "progressive" "Democratic" websites I could find. "Get yourself to Washington!" I wrote. "General strike -- now or never!" I exhorted.

I got two responses. One said, "I'd love to do it, but I gotta go to work in the morning." And the other one said, "You sound like you're ten years old."

Last year I wrote a whole series of big beautiful posts urging my readers to get involved in a General Strike planned for September 11th.

Nobody linked to a single one of those posts. No other blogger, to my knowledge, even mentioned the idea. I took this as a sign of the level of commitment to positive change among my readership. Namely: None.

As I wrote before the "election" of 2006,

By refusing to work every day, rather than refusing to "vote" once every two years, you could make your voice heard every day. Or at least that's the theory.

But in this case it's only a theory; and there will never be a general strike in the USA, no matter how clear it becomes that our "elections" are a farce.

Why? Because consumers would be required to sacrifice a little bit of material comfort for future of their democracy, and for the future of their children.

And that is the one thing Americans have proven they absolutely will not do.

I'd happily throw my weight behind Arthur Silber's call for massive civil disobedience. But my track record's not so good.

It's not as if you couldn't see this coming.

Here's an excerpt from a song I wrote in 1984.

It's Too Late

There's nothin' you can do about it
nowhere you can take your complaint
Everybody loves to shout but
no one ever listens until it's
too late

Everywhere you look there's life forms
buidin' little walls and fences
Hardly people anymore, just
owners of establishments, it's
too late

It's too bad
They never gave a thought to what they had

It's so sad
There's nothin' left of what they had

There's nothin' you can do about it
even though it makes no sense, there's
something comforting about
running into walls and fences
too late

Aw, it's too late
Aw, it's too bad
Aw, man, it's over.

Another Mission Accomplished: Afghan Opium Production Increases Again!

Colum Lynch in the Washington Post:

U.N.: Opium Trade Soars in Afghanistan

Afghan opium cultivation grew 17 percent last year, continuing a six-year expansion of the country's drug trade and increasing its share of global opium production to more than 92 percent, according to the 2008 World Drug Report, released Thursday by the United Nations.

Afghanistan's emergence as the world's largest supplier of opium and heroin represents a serious setback [sic] to the U.S. policy [sic] in the region.

The opium trade has soared since the U.S.-led 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, which had eradicated almost all of the country's opium poppies in 2001.

The proceeds from the illicit trade -- which is concentrated in Taliban strongholds -- are now helping finance a resurgent Taliban that is battling American troops and their allies.

and so on...

Choose Your Lens -- But Do It Carefully

New from Mark Morford: We are doomed! Sort of!
Earth in crisis, food and water increasingly scarce, people freaking out. Should you join them?

It would be nice to think much of the ugliness is coming to an end.

It would be lovely to imagine the era of brutal Earth-mauling technologies, coal extraction and petroleum and industrial agriculture and strip mining and clear cutting and industrial fishing and all rest, all the more rapacious and unforgiving notions of how we exist on this planet are, after an era of unchecked capitalistic greed and waste and over-consumption right along with almost zero concern for consequences and the ethics of sustainability, finally moving toward obsolescence -- or rather, are quickly being shoved there by sheer necessity, brutal market forces, as supply runs dry and oil production slows and the Earth groans and spits and says, "enough already."

It is a pivotal time, and now more than ever, you get to choose the lens through which you want to watch it all unfold. Or implode.

Choose your lens! And pick your frame!

How much are you willing to look at? And what are you willing to see when you look at it?

For every bit of good news, bad seems to top it like a dirt clod on an ice cream cone. More than 10 years ago, we banned CFCs and as a result, the ozone hole is actually healing, which could theoretically help slow global warming. Then again, as the ice shelves melt, more trees grow, which, given the circumstances, might actually make things worse by reducing the albedo effect.

On it goes. Flooding in the Midwest has severely damaged corn and soy crops, further straining the food supply and washing tons of pesticides into the water table. Meanwhile, California is in drought, wildfires are spreading like, well, wildfire as the state endures its driest spring ever.

It's tempting to see it as one vicious tug of war, eternal dark forces pitted against eternal light, exemplified by, say, Big Oil CEOs on one side and hemp-loving biodiesel hippies on the other, a grand footrace to see if our rapacious capitalistic appetites will destroy us before our finer reason and good conscience saves us in the final minute.

Far harder to swallow the reality, which is far more gray and murky and strange. Because of course there is no 100-percent perfect energy source, no such thing as zero pollution, no magic bullet, no way to move through God's wicked workshop without breaking a few glasses and swiping some gumballs and leaving skid marks on the lawn. Maybe the real question isn't which lens to choose, but rather, do we even know how to see?

I think you should read the whole piece, and Mark Morford's archives are here.

DoJ Illegally Preferred Politically Savvy Applicants

According to a report from the Department of Justice [PDF], law students who applied for select DoJ programs were illegally screened for political acumen.

Those students who recognized that there had been a coup d'etat in 2000, solidified by an enormous false flag terror event the following September, were preferred to those who seemed oblivious, and by a wide margin. The bloggers who follow these issues with fairness in their hearts and nothing in their heads will have a field day with this one, but it makes perfect sense.

Students who were smart enough to have (or claim) Conservative leanings, Republican affiliations, and/or Federalist Society connections were -- quite predictably, in my view -- strongly preferred over those who had or claimed no political connections at all. And the students in this neutral group -- again, quite predictably -- were strongly preferred over those who were (frankly) thick enough to proclaim their Liberal bias, Democratic affiliations and/or connections with the treasonous groups which tend to support such quaint notions as civil rights, social justice, and the former alleged supremacy of the US Constitution.

Think of it this way: if you lived in 1950s Russia and you had a chance to work -- even in some dim capacity -- for the Politburo, or any of its "political" organs, would you list Adam Smith among your influences and laissez-faire capitalism among your passions?

Well, you could, but you wouldn't get the job, would you?

Hope This Is As Sick As It Gets, But Don't Count On It

Angela Levin for the UK's Daily Mail, with profound disgust (my emphasis):

Greetings from Guantanamo Bay ... and the sickest souvenir shop in the world

The sands are white, the sea laps gently and crowds of bronzed Americans laze in the Caribbean sunshine.

They have a cinema, a golf course and, naturally, a gift shop stocked with mugs, jaunty T-shirts and racks of postcards showing perfect sunsets and bright green iguanas.

Only the barbed wire decoration, a recurring motif, hints at anything wrong.

Welcome to "Taliban Towers" at Guantanamo Bay, the most ghoulishly distasteful tourist destination on the planet.

As these astonishing mementoes show, the US authorities are promoting the world's most notorious prison camp as a cheap hideaway for American sunseekers -- a revelation that has drawn international anger and condemnation.

Just yards from the shelves of specially branded mugs and cuddly toys, nearly 300 "enemy combatants" lie sweltering in a waking nightmare.

It is six years since foreign prisoners, many captured in Afghanistan, were first taken to this US-occupied corner of Cuba. Yet even now, no charges have been brought against them.

While the detainees lie incarcerated, visitors can windsurf, take boat trips and go fishing for grouper, tuna, red snapper and swordfish.

The United States' 1.5 million service personnel and Guantanamo's 3,000 construction workers are eligible to visit the "resort", which boasts a McDonald's, KFC and a bowling alley.

They even have a Wal-Mart supermarket.

The vacation comes at a knock-down price: just $42 (£20) per night for a suite of air-conditioned rooms, including a kitchen, bathroom, living room and bedrooms.

But it is the souvenirs that have led to the greatest criticism. One T-shirt from the gift shop is decorated with a guard tower and barbed wire. It reads: "The Taliban Towers at Guantanamo Bay, the Caribbean's Newest 5-star Resort."

Another praises "the proud protectors of freedom". A third displays a garish picture of an iguana and states: "Greetings from paradise GTMO resort and spa fun in the Cuban sun."

A child-sized shirt says: "Someone who loves me got me this T-shirt in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

There are mugs inscribed with "kisses from Guantanamo" and "Honor Bound To Defend Freedom".

The Guantanamo holiday trade was exposed by Zachary Katznelson, a British-based human rights lawyer and spokesman for Reprieve, the group leading the international campaign against the camp.

"When I see the conditions the prisoners have to cope with and then think of the T-shirt slogans, I am appalled," he said. "To say I am repulsed is an understatement. Unbelievable as it may seem, the US authorities are proud of the 'souvenirs' and what they are doing."

Mr Katznelson represents 28 of the detainees and makes regular visits to the prison.

"The military keeps a tight hold on everything that is available in Guantanamo Bay and someone senior has given their approval for this disgusting nonsense," he said.

"Pretending that Guantanamo Bay is essentially a resort in the Caribbean is grossly offensive and the idea of relaxing in the sun while close by many individuals are robbed of their rights, tortured and abused is both repugnant and ridiculous."

His anger is shared by other human rights campaigners. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said Guantanamo represents a shameful chapter in American history.

Amnesty International said: "These supposedly 'fun' souvenirs are in grotesquely bad taste and the fact that they are on sale at the camp quite frankly beggars belief."

There are currently 280 prisoners sweltering in cages in temperatures of up to 100F (38C). The camp, where 7,000 soldiers are stationed, was established in 2002 following the invasion of Afghanistan.

In 2004, photographs of cowed Guantanamo prisoners in orange jump suits shocked the world.

"The majority are kept in isolation in cells that are no bigger than a toilet," said Katznelson. "There is no sea view. Instead, if they have a window, it looks out on to a bleak corridor. The cells are lined with steel from floor to ceiling, including the toilet, sink and bed base.

"There is a popular misconception that these men have had trials and been found guilty. Nothing is further from the truth. Not one of them has.

"The tortures that the Americans use are wide-ranging and inhuman. One is to blast the cell with freezing cold air. Another is to pretend to take the prisoners to a country like Egypt where prisoners are tortured, even to the extent of taking them on a mock flight, so they can be treated in a barbaric fashion."

Katznelson continued: "Inmates are offered three meals a day, but there are eight prisoners who have been on hunger strike for over a year asking either for a trial or to be set free.

"These men are force-fed twice a day. First they are strapped down with 16 different restrictions, including one that jerks their head back. Then a tube is fed through their nose and down into their stomach.

"The guards don't always use lubrication and regularly use the same tube for several different prisoners without bothering to clean it."

Guantanamo Bay has been rented as a military base from Cuba since 1903 for an unchanged $4,499 a year.

"As it is outside American territory the US Constitution doesn't apply," said Katznelson.

This may soon change as the US Supreme Court is about to reach a verdict on whether the Guantanamo Bay area is de facto American soil.

If so, the US Constitution does apply and the men will have the right to a fair and speedy trial.

You have to wonder what sort of souvenirs will be on sale at the "trials" -- if they ever have "trials".

Chris Floyd has more: Fun in the Sun: Gitmo Gets Makeover as R&R Resort

The Pentagon has splashed out for white sand beaches, a golf course, movie theaters, a bowling alley, restaurants – even a Wal-Mart – right next to the holding pens where Terror War captives have languished in limbo for years, enduring endless isolation,"harsh interrogation techniques" and other holiday amusements.

We don't mean to imply that the serious business going on at Gitmo is ignored, however. Far from it. The gift shop features several items that make antic hay of the concentration camp's dread purpose. Barbed wire and guard towers are a prevalent motif on various cups and shirts, for example. You can sip your beachside latte in a cup that tells the world that the Bush gulag is "Honor Bound to Defend Freedom." And if you find froggies and dolphins a bit too frilly, you can always prepare your kids to take their rightful place in the Terror War imperium with a t-shirt emblazoned "Future Behavior Modification Instructor." It makes learning fun!
...

You can read more about the amenities enjoyed by the non-paying guests at Gitmo in this piece, which points you to a mass of material detailing their treatment, including the landmark series from McClatchy Newspapers.