A Note From Marin County

(Aurthur is indeed still alive and busy subverting the dominant paradigm, or something. Here's a letter from the old fart just received at Bad Hat HQ. Note: the Ken Burns link was added by Bad Hat, not Arthur.)

Dear Ass Hat,

I hope everyone has taken the opportunity to watch Ken Burns' "War" series. Very tough watching because the sum of human misery from that war simply stretches the imagination. I am curious what Uncle Bob thinks of it overall. What struck me the most were the comments over and over again about the official blunders, miscommunications and screw-ups. Each of which cost thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Stupid leaders are not unique to the Iraq War. We just are hearing more about it, more quickly, whereas a lot of decisions in WW II were glossed over at the time and people were so relieved to have the war end that I think there was little taste for revisiting past decisions.

What also stuck in my throat was the description of the intentional allied firebombing of cities in Europe and Japan. There seemed to be a calculated science involved in setting enormous areas of cities on fire by creating "firestorms". When you think about it, when a firestorm was able to cause a hundred thousand deaths in one night, mostly civilian, was it really such a great leap to decide to drop atomic bombs on cities? I doubt that anyone knew much about the subsequent deaths that would result from radiation exposure, so my assumption is that they just figured, "Hey, one bomb or five thousand incendiary bombs, either way a hundred thousand will die. What's the difference?"

And that is the terrible calculus of all-out war. Again, I would defer to Uncle Bob for his reaction and comments on how people viewed things at the time, but it very much seems as though many viewed it as "Us or them", by fair means or foul, and such an idea was not entirely unreasonable. Could we stumble into another war of such ferocity? Hard to say, but equally impossible to rule out.

It is a compelling argument for electing the right individual. I wish I knew what was going to happen in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Florida is going to be early, too, and despite threats to not count their votes, they will. It all seems a messy and arbitrary system.

Arthur

p.m. carpenter's Commentary - "A Comedy of Arrows"

(Here's a wonderful column by p.m. carpenter, just to get us started this week. And just for our transit union friends at LTD, notice his reference in the last paragraph. Now that we're not allowed to strike, I'm wondering just how good this "binding arbitration" thing is going to work out. But, that's another post altogether... JP)


Having misjudged the illegal law of the land for at least the past couple of years, Congressional Democrats are now the ones suffering from the "combined effects" of a "secret regime" and its torturous application of authoritarian rule.

How embarrassing. Or, as John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, put it, "I find it unfathomable that the committee tasked with oversight of the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program would be provided more information by The New York Times than by the Department of Justice."

Just as unfathomable is that any Democratic member of Congress would still find unfathomable any administration secrecy, brazen illegality, or bombastic snubbing of the people's representatives.

But, the gloves are off, or, to mix metaphors, the Dems have drawn some menacing projectiles from their quivers and are now aiming straight at the administration's swinish heart.

The chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees are, understandably, particularly upset, because the New York Times did indeed do their work for them -- the product of which John Conyers finds "extremely troubling," and Patrick Leahy speculates is proof of a "secret regime." This would be extremely troubling proof number -- what? -- 168?

Nevertheless, they mean business this time. So Conyers has sent flying a scathing letter to Justice, and Leahy, along with fellow judiciary committee members, has vowed to "closely question" the administration's attorney-general nominee "about his views on interrogation." Well, that should clear things up.

Furthermore, Democrats are "demand[ing] to see the classified memorandums" regarding the administration's happily deployed "harsh interrogation techniques."

But White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday -- rather, she actually said yesterday -- that those techniques are secret because they're classified. Had I been present I would have asked why they're classified, just for the amusement of hearing her say, because they're secret.

At any rate, Ms. Perino assured us, the world and potential terrorists that the interrogation techniques are "safe," thereby disclosing practical information that she also said should never be disclosed, lest terrorists train against the techniques. Why bother?

Just as entertaining was a statement released late yesterday from old reliable Kit Bond -- a man I once personally witnessed primping his hair endlessly before a radio interview -- saying that the intelligence committee on which he sits, with thumbs twirling and fingers in the ears, had already "been briefed on the administration’s 'legal justifications' for interrogation," which, of course, happen to be illegal.

Thus, in the name of God, marches the Rump Parliament against its increasingly monarchical foe, whose secrecy and impunity are sure to triumph once again -- because, having adorned itself with the similar powerlessness of a strike-disowning union, impeachment is "off the table."

Weekend Update - October 6th

• Why isn't there more serious news on the front page of the newspapers? Mark Morford ponders that question in "Britney Spears Sucks Blackwater."


• James Dobson says he just can't bring himself to vote for Rudy. Is it the abortion thing, or is he afraid of losing access to power?


• A U.S. District Court judge put Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial on hold yesterday. Can something reasonable come from it?
• Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American public wants our troops out of Iraq. Helen Thomas calls them spineless.
• Skeeter Sanders (who?) reveals secret transcripts that make Bush look bad. Does anyone have a secret transcript that makes Bush look good? Now THAT would be news.
• p.m. carpenter discusses the GOP, or what's left of it.
• Breaking News: God has told Richard Roberts (son of Oral) not to worry about that pesky litigation concerning misuse of University funds. Next week, Bad Hat reveals God's cell phone number.
• When it comes to Blackwater, just follow the money.
• John Edwards slams Hillary Clinton over her link to Blackwater. Here we go.
• Bitter, angry, shallow, and vain - poor poor Clarence Thomas. "Liberals are scarier than the Ku Klux Klan." And this man is a Supreme Court Justice.

Movie Review - "Loose Change"

(Brother Alexander gives us his take on the conspiracy movie "Loose Change.")

I've just viewed the documentary Loose Change (2nd Edition), a film which is growing in popularity and causing quite a controversy among anyone remotely interested in this century's turn of political events. It's primary message is that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11th were planned and executed by the U.S. government. As with many conspiracy theories, Loose Change bases it's theories off perceived anomalies in the way the September 11th attacks were reported.

Let me start, here, by stating my own point of view. I do agree with the basic premise of the film, that there was a huge coverup and (less than) masterful redirection of blame and attention committed. I do not necessarily agree with any of the conclusions this film jumps to, however. I feel the creators of this film are rank amateurs in the conspiracy world and wouldn't know a secret plan if it was jammed up their collective arses. It does have it's good points as well as the bad, however, and I wish to comment on those.

- Sequence -

I won't bother to restate any of their opinions or conclusions, since those are best heard from their own mouths, but I will give a brief overview of what is covered within the scope of the film. Loose Change opens with a brief history of the past plots and plans of thepolitical players at hand. Few, if any, sources are stated and we must take all of their history lesson at their word. I feel this is a bad position for the filmmakers to put themselves in, especially considering their credibility is the first thing on the chopping block.

They move next into the more common and "safe" concepts that surround the specific attack on the Pentagon that morning. The filmmakers then turn their attention on the twin towers, focusing their collected evidence towards the belief that the towers were brought down ultimately by explosive demolition charges. The filmmakers talk quitea bit about the flights being re-routed and replaced by drone aircraft, mentioning that the passengers were "disappeared" from normal society while their planes were replaced by automated drones and at least cruise missile. They also talk about Flight 93 that was, supposedly, taken back by the passengers and crashed in a field where virtually no wreckage nor bodies were found inside a 15-20 foot hole in the ground. Furthermore, they state that Flight 93 was sighted at an airport in Cleveland and that all of the cell phone calls from the flights were faked with recorded voices.

Lastly the filmmakers state repeatedly that bin Laden never claimed responsibility for the attack, that the government faked videos of him making these statements and that most of the terrorists that died for their cause in the attacks were alive and well in their home countries in the following days.

- The Good, The Bad and The Ugly -

While attempting to be "scientific" throughout the film, the filmmakers seem to be very confused about what temperature jet fuel will burn at, stating various temperatures throughout the film. They are very certain about the melting points of steel, however. It's a sad point since steel will melt at different temperatures and rates depending on what kind of steel it is. The filmmakers have completely ignored this point. A lot of assumptions are made throughout the film without the favor of expert testimony and often with the aid of misquoted scientists to back them up.

And this is how they completely lost me in their film - most of their"evidence" was brought forth via misquoting, placing video and quotes out of context and basing presumptions off non-expert opinions andstatements made in the heat of the moment. The film itself is very cheaply produced, but looks nice. They claim they spent $2k on theoriginal and $6k on the 2nd Edition, however virtually all of the special effects are easily produced with basic video editing software, much of the movie consists of simple screen captures of the GoogleEarth program and, from what I can tell, the majority of the movie consists of video footage and audio which was stolen without permission from the networks and other filmmakers. Indeed, Loose Change is in it's 2nd Edition for the very reason that some of theother filmmakers were threatening lawsuit if their misused footage wasn't removed.

If you can survive it, the entire film is narrated by a very dry monotone voice, reminiscent of the reading voice of Charlie Brown in the popular holiday cartoon specials. The narrator sounds completely disinterested throughout the film, which I believe was an attempt at making it sound like a serious film. I don't think they achieved this effect properly.

Regardless, there are a few good points to this film.. and I do believe it is at least worthy of a once-over look. First, it's free.They aren't out to make money. You can freely view this film on a number of internet sites, including Google Video. Second, while I do not agree with many of the theories put forward by the filmmakers, it does dare to question the official government statements and version of events that surround this confusing incident. I firmly believe the filmmaker gives a bad name to conspiracy theorists everywhere, but anything that makes people think a little harder (and more openly) about the situation is a good thing. Third... nope, I can't think of a third reason why this is a good film. Worthy of a view, perhaps, but as far as documentaries go I'd give it a three or four stars out of ten. Maybe lower than that considering they did not obtain proper permission for most of their footage use.

Visit the Wikipedia entry for further commentary and to be directed to where you may view it freely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video) Or, try this one here.

Signing out from the Constitution State, Brother Alexander.

Weekend Update - September 29th

• Here's a real treat: Our good friend Danno and his grandson Jordan are a hit on YouTube.
• Is Keith Olbermann the next Edward R. Murrow?
• The learning curve of the magnificently obsessed. p m carpenter
• "You, Bill Clinton, and a Bowl of Chips." How campaigns use catchy titles to get you to open your E-mail.
• Here's the latest on our friend O'Reilly. This man is definitely becoming unhinged.
• And what's an O'Reilly without a Limbaugh?
• Our hilarious President: "Childrens do learn."
• Juan Cole reveals impeachable offenses by Bush. Let's do it!
• Wounded Vets Also Face Financial Woes. An American disgrace.
• Bill Kristol's "dark humor." What a putz.
• Krugman's excellent column on mercenaries in the military.
• Mark Morford's "Great American Hypocrisy Tour."

p.m. carpenter - A Colossal Swindle

p m carpenter's commentary

September 24, 2007
Demonizing the inconsequential: The happy hysteria of Monster-Making 101
Now this is startling -- assuming you haven't picked up a paper in the last six years or so: "Political analysts [in Iran] say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system."

It's only natural that the Bush administration should misunderstand. It's what it does. And if no troubling misunderstanding exists, it creates one, just to keep the dogs of war and distraction hungry. But if you caught that embarrassing "60 Minutes" interview with Majmoud Ahmadinejad last night, in which Iran's faltering president was treated with all the gravity of a virtual dictator, then you know the Bush administration isn't alone in fomenting misunderstandings. It can always count on assorted elements of the equally unschooled media.

Ahmadinejad is good copy, as the expression goes, mostly by virtue of having a big mouth. He's also the perfect and easily digested foil to our mountainous misunderstandings in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. And what a perfect face for a U.S. poster boy of unctuous evil -- one that slyly grins as it surely plots its nefarious schemes of global disorder and regional domination. It's always nice to put a face on these things, unless, of course, we don't know where the face is and can't find it.

But we know precisely where Ahmadinejad is and precisely what he's doing; or, perhaps, we have that muddled. No matter. For it may even be that we know precisely what we're doing in misunderstanding what Ahmadinejad is doing and can do, because clarity is the enemy of misunderstandings and all the happy military-industrial complexities that come with them. Better to leave things murky, and dark. They seem so much more intriguingly nefarious that way.

We're doing a bang-up job. For as Iranian insiders say of what's happening on the inside: "In demonizing [their] president ... the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies."

"He's not that consequential," says one Iranian political scientist, who just previous to that comment nevertheless outlined the origins of his president's expanding consequence: "The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad."

Of course it does. How, after all, can we have an inconsequential clown as the face of so many troubles?

Yet as his power and influence in Iran decline; as his economy tanks; as his political allies flee him (one former supporter's depth of support was reflected in merely having "liked [his] slogans demanding justice"); as some of his ministers walk out; as his head of the central bank resigns in disgust; as his judiciary takes potshots at him; as Iran's powerfully "entrenched interests" grow more disgruntled with his domestic misrule -- in the face of all this, Ahmadinejad's importance grows largely because of the "international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up."

Such condemnation feeds Iran's real power -- Ayatollah Khamenei and his fellow reactionaries -- rooted in a paranoid ideology: "Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power stems not from his office per se, but from the refusal of his patron[s] ... to move beyond Iran’s revolutionary identity, which makes full relations with the West impossible."

On the other hand, if we were so foolish as to show an interest in fomenting full and productive relations, we'd then be stuck without an enemy. There's always China, I suppose, but it's busily engaged in manufacturing our lethal toys, so best leave it for another day. Ahmadinejad is perfect for now.

Weekend Update - September 22nd

• The U.S. Government's plan to protect you from terrorist livestock.
• Someone you know interested in joining the military? Have them read this first: Top military recruitment lies.
• Mark Morford rejoices in the "Fall of the Godmongers."
• Imagine a universe where a man can gun down women and children anytime he pleases, knowing he will never be brought to justice. Michael Hirsh, in Newsweek.
• Petraeus is no General Smedley Butler.
• How George Bush became the new Saddam.
• p.m. carpenter has "A Conservative Epiphany."
• Wanna get your hackles up? Read "He Needed a Rescue."