By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA Analysts

The internet is loaded these days with reports of the inevitability of a U.S., or a U.S.-Israeli, attack on Iran. Some writers allege that the attack is imminent. Others, including the writers of this article, argue only that the attack will happen sometime before January 2009, when the Bush administration leaves office. Many of these stories have by now been picked up by the mainstream media. In fact, it is probably safe to say that today a majority of the traditionally cautious and so-called respectable foreign policy experts in the U.S. think it is at least possible that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.

Such is the power of recollection with respect to how Bush bulled his way into invading Iraq in 2003 that many people simply accept that he might gamble on doing it again. He has made it clear that in this "War on Terror," victory means everything to him. He might also believe that a win in Iran could reverse current setbacks in Iraq and also bring victory closer for the U.S. and Israel in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. And he has already shown that he is willing to accept the killings of hundreds of thousands or even a million people in the hope of going down in history as a great commander-in-chief.

The people of the United States are the only ones with a chance of stopping him, and it can only happen if a powerful majority of voters will join in a maximum effort to impeach both Bush and Cheney right now. This has to happen before the U.S. and/or Israel undertake any expanded military efforts against Iran.

All of this will be difficult, and many will think it impossible. We citizens of the U.S. who do not want our country to become involved in a greater war with Iran will not have most of the print and TV media with us, nor the military-industrial complex that wants more wars. The Israel lobby will desperately oppose efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, because it will recognize instantly that the two top U.S. leaders are the lobby's strongest backers of war with Iran. At the same time, most of the Democratic Party leadership and all but one or two of the Democratic presidential candidates will be reluctant to support impeachment because they are competing with the Republicans in an effort to show that each party supports Israel more strongly than the other.

But the people of this country have plenty of power to defeat all these forces if they will use it to support justice, particularly in the Middle East, which is today the highest priority area where U.S. and Israeli foreign policies play a major role, and the area where those policies are the most unjust. We believe it will be by no means impossible to persuade a majority of American voters, given their already established distaste for U.S. failures in Iraq, to rip off the cocoon of pleasant but apathetic consumerism in which they have encased themselves, and participate more seriously in the political processes of our country than they ever have in recent years.

Our Dumb President - BobcatJH

You know, every time the president's intelligence comes up for debate, the right wing is quick to tell everyone that, in fact, President Bush isn't an ignorant moron. What's more, not only is he not an ignorant moron, but he's also not an arrogant boor, his behavior on the world stage not a cause for embarrassment. He's a Yale man, after all, with a Harvard MBA to boot! Well today, I'm calling "bullshit" on the right wing. The president is all of those things ... and more.

The ignorance, the boorishness, the embarrassing behavior were all on display at this year's G8 Summit, which concluded Monday. Between the president's stuffing a roll in his mouth to his use of "shit" in an exchange with Tony Blair to his witless banter with world leaders to his more-than-awkward surprise "massage" of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, our dumb president has never been dumber or more embarrassing. Or, for that matter, more AWOL when the world needs our leadership most. But that's alright, his defenders will say, he's just being himself, being authentic. Great. Our president is an authentic jackass.

It was the "shit" heard 'round the world. In fact, it drew top billing with many news outlets at a time when the world appears to be unravelling as we speak. Bush, who, like Blair, didn't know their conversation was being recorded, called the British prime minister over at the luncheon that closed the summit. "Blair," Bush asked, "what are you doing? You leaving?" When Blair shifted the conversation to trade negotiations, Bush shifted it back, thanking Blair for a sweater he gave the president as a gift, most likely for his recent birthday. Then, the conversation shifted to the Middle East. After a brief exchange, and while continuing to talk with his mouth full of what appeared to be a roll, the president said, "See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over."

While using profanity and speaking with your mouth full are by no means nothing new - just ask my girlfriend, who could tell you both have been a part of my daily repertoire for years - I'm not the president. I'm not this nation's top ambassador to the rest of the planet. I'm not the public face of the United States of America. I'm just an average American and a blogger. I write things about people ranging from morons like Brad Stine and Ann Coulter to role models like Edward R. Murrow and Al Gore. I don't have my finger on the nuclear (or the "nucular") trigger. I don't travel in Air Force One, nor do I have a Secret Service detail. And I don't attend summits where I'm expected to, at the bare minimum, act like I've been there before. But Bush is all of these things; I'd just love to be able to dress him up and take him out without him embarrassing himself - or us.

So the president said "shit" and couldn't hold a conversation without stuffing his face. We've all done it. But what's as concerning to me, if not more, was the manner by which the president spoke with his fellow world leaders in an unguarded moment caught on tape. Hint: Like an idiot. When asked by someone, most likely an aide, something about whether or not the president wanted a prepared statement to close the meeting, Bush replied, "No. Just gonna make it up. I'm not going to talk too damn long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long." Then, the president shifted his conversation to, quite likely though the exchange wasn't on camera, Chinese President Hu Jintao. "Gotta go home," Bush said. "Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home. How about you? Where are you going? Home?" Continuing, Bush added, "This is your neighborhood. It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home?"

Though the reply was inaudible, Bush then said, "Eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country." As the Washington Post indicates, it's at this point that the president apparently brought someone else into the exchange. "It takes him eight hours to fly home," Bush said, telling a server that he wanted a Diet Coke. "It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China." Russia's big and so is China? Just gonna make it up? Is he, as Cenk Uygur said, a third grader? Do you feel a lot safer knowing that you voted for a man whose idea of tableside conversation is asking world leaders how long their ride home is and marveling at the size of their countries?

When he wasn't showing his grasp of global geography, the president was busy doing things that would normally trigger a workplace sexual harassment workshop. Cameras captured the president walking behind Merkel and giving her an impromptu shoulder massage. Her look, which mirrors the look of any unsuspecting female in a bar when a drunk gets touchy-feely, was priceless. Bush's look, coincidentally, matched the look of that drunk. I mean, what the fuck? Somehow, I don't see former presidents Bush or Clinton doing this with Helmut Kohl. Nor, also, do I see either Bush or Clinton asking their secretary of state for permission to use the restroom, as this president has in the past. But a massage? Seriously? I know these summits can be tiring, tedious affairs, but does that fact warrant our president acting like the office letch? I doubt it.

Let's face facts: Our president is dumb. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know how to act in public. And it's always been that way. It's been more than 70 years since "... the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". More than 40 since "... ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." And, in that time, we've gone from the measured words of true statesmen to "Russia's big and so is China." Let me be the latest to ask: What the hell happened? When did flipping pancakes, taking hunting trips or throwing a football become more important for our presidential candidates than knowing what the hell they were doing? More specifically, when did we, as Americans, decide that that was what we wanted out of our presidents?

I'd sure like to know, because, as I've said before, "Isn't it a tad insane that we care more about whether we can have a beer with our president than whether we think he can save us from a fucking disaster or actually knows the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to foreign policy?" Who cares if the president would be a great guy to have a drink with? Hell, this one isn't even supposed to have a drink. Or, maybe he's not supposed to but he has, which would go a long way to explaining Bush's behavior at the G8 Summit. Either way, he was an embarrassment. And he always has been.

Marines with no Ethics, Morals & Values !!??

Cameraman tells Falluja marines why he broadcast controversial shooting.

The broadcast last week of footage showing a US marine shooting an injured Iraqi fighter in Falluja caused an international outcry. Yesterday the cameraman, Kevin Sites, published on his website this open letter to the marines with whom he had been embedded.
Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter - hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.
This week I've been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read my dispatches on the web is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to to play it straight down the middle - not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right. But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.
It's time for you to have the facts, in my own words, about what I saw, without imposing on that marine guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds. Here it goes.
It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.
Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where 10 insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday, may have been re-occupied overnight.
I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. Many of the structures are empty of people - but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.
While the marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.
I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.
At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.
We hear gunshots that seem to becoming from inside the mosque. A marine from my squad yells, "Are there marines in here?"
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds.
The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap - as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a marine walks up to the other two bodies about 15 feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's fucking faking he's dead - he's faking he's fucking dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket.
He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man - though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the marines again, what I had told the lieutenant - that this man - all of these wounded men - were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir - I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.
He says, "Yesterday I was shot ... please ... yesterday I was shot over there - and talked to all of you on camera - I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information."
(This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.)
In the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque?
It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller - who interviewed the marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by a navy corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed.
The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first.
Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday.
It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat - those marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
During the course of these events, there were plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.
I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.
No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone, would deny that a soldier or marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.
In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat - the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
I can't know what was in the mind of that marine. He is the only one who does.
But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances - it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.
Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down.
I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.
For those who don't practice journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behavior or character of an organization as a whole.
The answer is not an easy one.
In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both - though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting.
But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective, will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonizing struggle - the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.
When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible.
Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.
I interviewed your commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time - something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here - because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating.
"That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor - and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera - the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.

Photo op. # 3. Bush Sr.

Today's L.A. Times leads with a surreal photo of George Bush (the elder) skydiving. The crucial thing to understand is that he is descending in tandem with an army sergeant (that guy on top of him). As the caption explains: "Winds and clouds prevented Bush from jumping solo as part of his 80th birthday festivities."

Given that we're in an election cycle, and the entire Bush family took maximum advantage of last week's Reagan Marathon, what political subtexts come along with this image? I'll offer a few:

a.) Nothing ever goes according to plan with that family.

b.) I don't see a lot of clouds, just a lot of excuses.

c.) Just so nobody forgets, Bush Sr. is the real flyer in the family

d.) The Bush's take big leaps, but rarely do they come out on top.

e.) Everything is a photo op with these people.

f.) Must feel weird not to have Barbara on his back.

Fishy Circumstances and Flawed Timelines Surround American's Beheading

With several news outlets reporting that Berg's family is angry from the US government over their son's violent death and revelations that "Berg was detained by Iraqi police at a checkpoint in Mosul on March 24. He was turned over to U.S. officials and detained for 13 days" (in other words, he was detained by the US military just prior to his death) -- (AP 5/11/04) we have to question what really happened and who was really behind Berg's horrific murder.

We have received several emails from listeners questioning what really happened including this one:

me and a friend were discussing recent news events and trying to piece together the information presented to us, thought you might want to look into this further, they said in the news that nicholas berg was killed 2 weeks ago (i think), however in the video the culprits who killed him said they were "avenging iraqi prisoner abuse" but those photos weren't released until last week, so my question is how is that even a possible motive if he was killed prior to the abuse photos being released?? maybe i am misinformed but thought id ask the question to someone who would look into it

And this one:

Hey jezuz, I know people like me who have learned not to trust our government tend to see a conspiracy under every rock. With that said... The picture the media is now showing of the guy the terrorist beheaded as revenge for what went on in the Iraqi prisons looks odd to me. If you look at the men dressed in black, they all seem well fed. Actually most look fat. That bothers me, because these guys are fighting a war and eating on the run. They are constantly on the move and should be either very fit and trim or scrawny and malnourished because of the same reasons. One thing they should not be is fat like couch potatoes. If you look at all of the photos of the prisoners who were naked who supposedly were just plucked of the street, most of them are thin. Just an observation Alex

And this one:

1) extremely convenient "wag the dog" timing at the height of furor
regarding U.S. torture of Iraqis

2) CNN poll question: "Is the Berg killing a reason for withholding any
remaining Iraq prisoner abuse pictures?" Bush has been reported to be
struggling with question of whether Pentagon should release additional
torture photos. Given that the alleged decapitation of Berg was allegedly
prompted by the first wave of torture photos, Bush could now cite "national
security" issues for witholding additional materials.

3) Berg's last known whereabouts was in U.S. custody.

4) Berg shown in video wearing orange jumpsuit known to be of U.S. issue
(compare with pictures at Guantanamo).

5) Berg mysteriously captured by Al-Quaeda (still wearing jumpsuit). Either
he escaped from U.S. captors or U.S. let him out -- with orange suit and
all -- to be immediately apprehended by Al-Quaeda (before he had a chance to
change).

6) Tape obviously spliced together and heavily edited. Goes from a) Berg
sitting in chair talking about family, to b) Berg sitting on floor with
hooded "militants" behind, to c) blurry camera movement, to d) almost
motionless Berg on floor as head cut off.

7) Audio clearly dubbed in.

8) "Arab" reader flips through pages of "statement" and keeps ending up on
the same page. Perhaps doesn't even known enough Arabic to recognize what
page he's on?

9) "Arabs" have lily-white hands and (other exposed) skin.

10) "Arabs" have Western-style body posture and mannerisms.

11) When Berg decapitated, there was almost no blood. If Berg were still
alive at this point, with the cut starting at front of throat, blood would
have been spraying everywhere. Berg's severed head, the floor, Berg's
clothes, and even the hand of the "Arab" who decapitated Berg had no visible
blood on it.

12) Berg's body didn't move while on the ground. Although held down, Berg
would have tried to instinctively wiggle and writhe away from captor's grip.

13) Camera angle made it impossible to see if Berg's eyes were even open.

14) Alleged "scream" from Berg sounded to be that of a woman and was clearly
dubbed in.

15) Berg goes to great trouble to identify himself, providing information
about his family. Why? To elicit greater sympathy? Or to provide a
positive ID. FBI visited Berg family in an attempt to "verify his
identity". Guy in video looks very little like Berg photos provided by
family.

I believe that Berg (or this lookalike character) was first killed (perhaps
by lethal injection, poisoning, etc.), then decapitated after dead (explains
lack of blood spraying everywhere). Berg was killed by Al-Quaeda (known to
be a CIA - Mossad joint venture). Berg video released at height of furor
over U.S. torture of Iraqis and just before Bush was to decide whether to
release additional torture videos. Now torture videos will be witheld from
public for reasons of national security. Now "patriots" everywhere will
laud the virtues of U.S. torture of "enemies". Sensitivity level of public
gets heightened in terms of what's acceptable treatment of prisoners.
Juxtaposed with decapitation, piling naked men into pyramid is nothing.
Such treatment will be considered more and more acceptable even in domestic
situations. George W. Bush sleeps well tonight while Berg family lives in
torture. Serves Berg's father right for opposing Bush and the war of
aggression against Iraq.

Jeff Rense has compiled some important information on Berg's detainment and questioning what really happened in his article, " Why Did The US Take
Custody Of Nick Berg?"

Two things are for sure:

First, Berg parents feel that their son was abandoned and betrayed by the US Government.

Second: NeoCons have already started to use Nick Berg's murder to justify torture and more war

Stand by your Man

When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, he warned lawmakers that more photos would be released of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq: "There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane... It's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid."

And just what do these photographs depict? According to MSNBC, the photos include images of an Iraqi soldier being beaten nearly to death; a photo of U.S. forces having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner; and photos of American soldiers acting inappropriately with a dead body. Does it get any worse? Yes, it does, as there is allegedly a videotape of young boys being raped by Iraqi guards. The video was shot by U.S. soldiers, who apparently must have found the raping of young boys to be very exciting to watch.

George W. Bush is standing by his man, dismissing calls for Rumsfeld's resignation. The Contra Costa Times reported that Vice President Dick Cheney on May 8 told critics of Rumsfeld to "get off his case and let him do his job." Get off his case? What, is Rumsfeld an inexperienced teenager fumbling through his first week of work at a "real" job?

At least some Republicans are taking the prison abuse allegations seriously. On the May 9th CBS program Face the Nation, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said, "I think it's still in question whether Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld…can command the respect and the trust and the confidence of the military and the American people to lead this country."

Outwardly, Bush was full of praise for Rumsfeld. At a May 10 press conference, Bush said, of Rumsfeld, "You are doing a superb job." Bush clearly has a different definition of the word superb than I have. Bush went on to say, "…our nation owes you a debt of gratitude."

Once again, the buck is not stopping anywhere near Bush or his cabinet.

Does this administration ever take responsibility for anything that happens on their watch? Right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh have downplayed the Abu Ghraib abuse, saying it was nothing more than people (the U.S. soldiers in the photographs) "having a good time" with a need to blow off "steam."

I wonder how Rush will explain the photographs that haven't been released yet, the ones that reportedly show, according to MSNBC, U.S. forces acting "inappropriately" with a corpse? Or video tape which allegedly contains footage of Iraqi guards raping young boys, with U.S. forces filming - and condoning - the rape? Is that a healthy way to let off steam, Rush?

At this point, I suspect Bush would do nothing to Rumsfeld, even if photographs emerged showing Rumsfeld laughing and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners. I guess Bush is very loyal.

If past actions are any indicator, the investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuse will drag on for months, perhaps being completed in time for the presidential election. Sure, some low-ranking troopers will get booted out of the Army, and I'm sure we'll see a one or two-star general stepping down. If Rumsfeld were a man of honor, he'd step down. Unfortunately, many in Bush's cabinet are far too arrogant to do anything like take responsibility for abhorrent behavior committed by people under them.

With each photo that comes to light, our credibility in Iraq is eroded. With tensions already high in parts of Iraq, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners may fuel additional hatred towards America and our soldiers. The repercussions are huge in this matter.

In the United States Navy, the captain of a ship is held responsible for the actions of their crewmembers. I think this same standard of accountability needs to be applied to Donald Rumsfeld.

Pat Tillman - John Rambo ?

When the death of Pat Tillman occurred, I turned to my friend who was watching the news with me and said, "How much you want to bet they start talking about him as a 'hero' in about two hours?" Of course, my friend did not want to make that bet. He'd lose. In this self-critical incapable nation, nothing but a knee-jerk "He's a hero" response is to be expected.

I've been mystified at the absolute nonsense of being in "awe" of Tillman's "sacrifice" that has been the American response. Mystified, but not surprised. True, it's not everyday that you forgo a $3.6 million contract for joining the military. And, not just the regular army, but the elite Army Rangers. You know he was a real Rambo, who wanted to be in the "real" thick of things. I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. Well, he got his wish. Even Rambo got shot in the third movie, but in real life, you die as a result of being shot. They should call Pat Tillman's army life "Rambo 4: Rambo Attempts to Strike Back at His Former Rambo 3 Taliban Friends, and Gets Killed."

But, does that make him a hero? I guess it's a matter of perspective. For people in the United States, who seem to be unable to admit the stupidity of both the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, such a trade-off in life standards (if not expectancy) is nothing short of heroic. Obviously, the man must be made of "stronger stuff" to have had decided to "serve" his country rather than take from it. It's the old JFK exhortation to citizen service to the nation, and it seems to strike an emotional chord. So, it's understandable why Americans automatically knee-jerk into hero worship.

However, in my neighborhood in Puerto Rico, Tillman would have been called a "pendejo," an idiot. Tillman, in the absurd belief that he was defending or serving his all-powerful country from a seventh-rate, Third World nation devastated by the previous conflicts it had endured, decided to give up a comfortable life to place himself in a combat situation that cost him his life. This was not "Ramon or Tyrone," who joined the military out of financial necessity, or to have a chance at education. This was a "G.I. Joe" guy who got what was coming to him. That was not heroism, it was prophetic idiocy.

Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn't need to insert himself into. It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his "service" was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.

Perhaps it's the old, dreamy American thought process that forces them to put sports greats and "larger than life" sacrificial lambs on the pedestal of heroism, no matter what they've done. After all, the American nation has no other role to play but to be the cheerleaders of the home team; a sad role to have to play during conflicts that suffer from severe legitimacy and credibility problems.

Matters are a little clearer for those living outside the American borders. Tillman got himself killed in a country other than his own without having been forced to go over to that country to kill its people. After all, whether we like them or not, the Taliban is more Afghani than we are. Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs. For that, he shouldn't be hailed as a hero, he should be used as a poster boy for the dangerous consequences of too much "America is #1," frat boy, propaganda bull. It might just make a regular man irrationally drop $3.6 million to go fight in a conflict that was anything but "self-defense." The same could be said of the unusual belief of 50 percent of the American nation that thinks Saddam Hussein was behind Sept. 11. One must indeed stand in awe of the amazing success of the American propaganda machine. It works wonders.

Al-Qaeda won't be defeated in Afghanistan, even if we did kill all their operatives there. Only through careful and logical changing of the underlying conditions that allow for the ideology to foster will Al-Qaeda be defeated. Ask the Israelis if 50 years of blunt force have eradicated the Palestinian resistance. For that reason, Tillman's service, along with that of thousands of American soldiers, has been wrongly utilized. He did die in vain, because in the years to come, we will realize the irrationality of the War on Terror and the American reaction to Sept. 11. The sad part is that we won't realize it before we send more people like Pat Tillman over to their deaths.

Cold Mountain

Slept through most of the saturday and then recalled how one of my female co-worker yearned to see me in a new outfit. Although any activity that disturbs my sleep is quicky shot down, procrastinated or despised. However with this I couldnt afford to. I was single :)
Next day I was in my sunday best ready to take-on the world (of course donning my new clothes). Cleaning my car: Again I am forced to perform an activity half heartedly. I reach my friends and we instantly hustled ourselves into the Cinema hall.
I found Cold Mountain to be a chore to get through, frankly. Indeed, Initially I was too excited even though this happens to be zillionth movie being made on civil war and then quickly slumped back into my seat because it bored and frustrated me. However, the script picked up when Ruby was introduced. I expect Zellweger to steal the show but given how bland and sketchy Ada and Inman were...

The major problem with Cold Mountain is that I never really got to know its two central characters. I have no idea what their lives were before the story began and never cared about what happened to them during the course of it. The colorful supporting characters were more memorable than the two romantic leads were. Ada and Inman simply had no personalities. Inman endures; Ada is weak but must learn to endure. That about sums them up.

At least Ada's character had some kind of an arc. Inman remained a cipher. The script implies he has some code of honor. We first meet him playing (an early form of lacrosse?) with his Cherokee neighbors; he later rescues a slave girl from a man who is trying to kill her. These P.C. attributes just felt tacked on. Why does he do these things? Just so he doesn't seem as nasty as the other characters populating his world?

Inman and Ada's romance was contrived and, worse, unbelievable. Theirs is that oft-used Hollywood gimmick of "love at first sight." (I believe in attraction at first sight but true love can only come from knowing somebody.) They share a handful of scenes together in Act One, where they mostly speak banal dialogue to one another. They kiss just once before Inman literally runs off to war. They write each other a few letters thereafter (a war movie clich? most recently seen in Pearl Harbor) but their few uneventful encounters in Act One failed to sustain my interest in ever seeing them reunited.

Why do Ada and Inman love and need each other so badly? I never found that out. I didn't know who these characters were so I didn't care about them. Thus, I didn't care what happened to them. That's one of the most fundamental yet easily forgotten lessons of screenwriting but I've read more scripts and seen more films that failed because that wasn't achieved. (Pearl Harbor and Captain Corelli's Mandolin immediately spring to mind.)

I just watched The Vikings again the other night. I mostly enjoyed it but it's a perfect example of an epic Hollywood romance where the main characters fall in love simply because it's demanded of them. After all, how can the two most beautiful people in the film not be in love?! It's just a given because they're the leads and that's what they're supposed to do. Ada and Inman's relationship felt as arbitrary as Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh's did in that film.

There's a rather lame attempt near the story's climax to have Ada and Inman address this issue head-on... by talking about it. That just made me painfully aware that the writer also realized it was a problem. "Look, the show's almost over and this issue's been hanging overhead from the get-go so let's just see clear it up now, shall we?" It was an awkward scene that took me right out of the story. By this late in the tale, explaining something to me won't work. My mind's been made up by then and it's too late to win me over. That's what the previous 100 pages were supposed to have done.

The other main problem with this draft is with its choppy, episodic structure. Cold Mountain might work better as a TV miniseries. At least that way the story would have more time to germinate, allowing us to bond with each new set of supporting characters that Inman encounters and to better understand how these encounters change him during his journey home.

While the supporting characters Inman meets may be more colorful or memorable than he is, that doesn't make them any more developed or compelling. They're just "ten minute ideas." Every ten pages or so a sequence ends, that character's fate is sealed, and then Inman moves on to the next quirky acquaintance. Again, I need to know who these people are in order to care about what happens next. Natalie Portman's character, Sara, is perhaps the most engaging and sympathetic of those that Inman meets but she's also the most manipulative and her fate the most predictable. And remember she's only in it for ten pages.

On the other hand, I think this draft spent enough time – if not too much – following Ruby and Ada. Their sequences together just kept hammering home the same point: Ada is weak and uneducated in the ways of the world and she'll die unless she becomes more like Ruby. I understood that the minute these two opposites were thrust together yet the point continued to be made. If I want to see a film about a Southern belle who loses everything she holds dear during the Civil War and must then toughen up in order to survive, why shouldn't I watch Gone with the Wind instead?

There were some powerful sequences here and there. The aforementioned "goat for supper" scene may make a vegetarian out of me yet. A campfire scene between Teague and two supporting characters was effectively tense (albeit predictable), and an earlier scene showing the Home Guard attacking a Yankee sympathizer's home was both sad and gruesome. Again, Inman's encounter with Sara was poignant yet manipulative. Plus, his apparent attraction to Sara only undermines the entire premise the script hinges on, which is that he only desires Ada and will do whatever he must to return to her. If they're going to explore the possibility of temptation, I would've liked to see Ada face that test as well but it never happened in this draft.

Anthony Minghella did a fine job of capturing the dreariness and morbidity of life in the South during the Civil War, showing the grim requirements that the times demanded from people in order to survive. You'll also feel the cold, pointless, and unbiased hand of death, which leaves almost no character untouched here. This made Cold Mountain an incredibly dark tale that offered only a few glimmers of hope. While the highbrow crowd may connect with the story on an intellectual level, Cold Mountain often failed on the more important (and cinematic) level, which is to establish an emotional bond with the spectator. Overall, Cold Mountain left me, well, cold

"Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

That's what we went to war over, according to Bush's most recent State of the Union address. Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

At least, that's the story this year.

I know they knew the risks when they signed up; but still, I have to pity Bush's speechwriters. Any of them who retain even the smallest vestige of what must have at some point been a love of the written word and an allegiance to the basic principles of logical argument must feel exquisite pain when they sit down at the big conference table and look wearily up at the giant, hairy, snorting pig standing on top of it.

The pig was kind of cute in January of 2000, when it was only a few weeks old. But pigs are highly efficient consumers, and no matter how much slop the Bush administration dumped into its trough, the pig would just snort happily and hoover it down. The handlers would come in the morning after some new debacle, and look at it, and think, by God, it's grown overnight. For the first year or so, they could still dress it up-little Sunday school outfits complete with white gloves and patent leather shoes for its trotters, little doctor outfits with white coats whose pockets bulged with affordable prescription drugs.

The pig outgrew most of the domestic-issues costumes within the first year, but September 11 was just the burst of inspiration that the Bush administration's Department of Porcine Cosmetics had been waiting for. The pig, now solidly fleshed with radiant pink skin and about the size of a Fiat, loved his new military uniforms. He pranced about in them, squealing with delight. Sometimes he would get loose from the handlers and take a wallow in the mud, but the news networks never showed that part. Instead, all across America people tuned in to see the embedded reporters talk about how great the pig was and how much the entire world loved him.

But by June of 2003, the pig himself rarely appeared on camera. He had gotten too big. The military uniforms were starting to look grotesque, and anyway they couldn't get him to stand still long enough to get them on. Photo-op after photo-op ended in disaster as the pig crashed through the set, trailing bits of unphotogenic garbage. On one memorable afternoon the pig struggled into the studio entirely covered in bits and pieces of no-bid contracts that had just been freshly prepared for Halliburton and Bechtel. Attempts to remove them proved difficult; staffers were reluctant to go near him, deterred as much by the smell emanating from his manure-moistened skin as by his size, teeth, and increasingly bad temper.

Plans for a behind-the-scenes look at the pig's private life via a Diane Sawyer special had to be scrapped when one of Sawyer's researchers discovered that human blood was now part of the pig's regular diet. That revelation led to a somewhat heated conversation with the staff of Prime Time Live, which finally ended when the producer stated flatly that a pig fed on Iraqi blood was one thing, but a pig fed on the blood of American soldiers was something not even FOX News could love.

The pig, not understanding why his popularity was waning so rapidly, became depressed. It wasn't, after all, the pig's fault. He was just doing what a pig does: eating up all the scraps and trash that fell from his owners' tables. If they didn't want him to be a monstrous behemothal vampire pig, they could have fed him something more nutritious and wholesome. This would have required Bush and his friends to eat better themselves, however; and they just didn't have the discipline. They gorged themselves on tax cuts, backroom deals, corruption, and war every night, and so that's what found its way into the poor pig's slop bucket. They left him alone in the dark for months at a time, and then once a year they would wrangle him, stuff him into some new outfit, make him up to look pretty for the cameras and then lead him into a room full of flashing lights that gave him a headache.

The pig, not having read the Constitution apart from the bits of it that John Ashcroft cut out and dropped into the slop bucket, didn't understand that the law of the land required him, as the allegorical representation of the reality of the Bush presidency, to put in an annual appearance for the American people. It wasn't the pig's fault that by January 2004, he was the size of a Ford Explorer, with high blood pressure, weak ankles, and a serious mean streak.

No wonder they had some trouble getting the lipstick on him this year.

Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

This year's line was lifted from David Kay's report on the search for WMDs in Iraq. That's the best they could come up with. Last weekend Kay himself resigned, on the grounds that since there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he's not going to waste any more time looking for them. Cheney, having apparently lost his mind, continues to maintain anyway that Iraq had these weapons. Bush, who was in the embarrassing position of having to trot that pig out for his annual photo-op, could not quite pass this year's pitifully weak WMD line off with all the "confidence" the commentators praised him for. Possibly his handlers remember his having been burned by his overselling of the evidence in the 2003 State of the Union address:


"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
The IEAE had long disavowed the 'report' on which the first claim was based even when he made that speech; the famous "sixteen words" about uranium from Africa were based on a document that the CIA had already determined to be a forgery; the "high-strength aluminum tubes" had already been ballyhooed by Colin Powell and then discredited by more objective authorities. Even though this was a younger pig-a svelter, cuter, less-obviously-vampiric pig-that lipstick was not doing too much for it even then.

On the index page they made at whitehouse.gov for the 2004 SOTU speech, there are links to the SOTU pages for 2003 and 2002. The one for 2003 doesn't work - it just directs you right back to 2004 - but the 2003 index page is still up here. It doesn't include a complete transcript; just chunks, each linked to its topic, and a webcast you can watch in its entirety if you have a DSL line and a spare 90 minutes.

What you do find, tucked away in one corner, is a link to a lengthy document entitled, Iraq: Apparatus of Lies. This piece serves two purposes: it puffs up the bogus case for war, and hardens Americans against any images of Iraqi suffering that they may see after we invade. The "Crafting Tragedy" section, while admitting that civilian casualties are an inevitable result of our military campaigns, nevertheless goes on to argue that this is Saddam Hussein's fault for deliberately putting his own civilians in harm's way in order to deceive people into thinking that these civilians died just because we dropped bombs on them. The entire document works on the same argument: since Saddam Hussein is cruel and deceptive, it doesn't matter how cruel and deceptive we are.

Reading it is painful, especially the descriptions of Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the mass media, which now have an unpleasantly familiar ring. Here's a choice bit from the section on "Corrupting the Public Record:"


COVERT PLACEMENT.

The following scenario reflects another, especially egregious corruption of the public record: An Iraqi government intelligence officer, diplomat, or operative provides a journalist or publication in another country with a false story. The story contains specific details that appear to bolster the story's main theme but cannot be verified. Sources or protagonists in the article are described in convincing detail but without actually being named. Dates or places of supposed events are provided in order to give the article texture and credibility.
Compare with Scott McClellan's explanation of why the alleged conversation between the Air Force One pilot and the British Airways pilot who 'almost spotted' Bush's plane during his Thanksgiving jaunt to Baghdad turned out not to have actually happened:


"And what we always try to do for you all in the press corps is to provide you a little color of important events, because we believe that's helpful to you for your stories, and to do your reporting to the American people. And so we reported it based on what we knew, and the conversation did take place. It was heard by the pilots on Air Force One. That was relayed to White House staff, and it was shared with you all in the media to help you keep the American people informed about what was a very important event."
At this point, "Iraq: Apparatus of Lies" appears to be not so much anti-Iraq propaganda as an instruction manual. It continues:


The Iraqis have also built false stories around real events or meetings, so that falsehoods can be built around a skeleton of truth.
We, of course, would never do such a thing, especially not to one of our own soldiers who had been seriously wounded in the line of duty.

For 2002's SOTU, the pig was a little more sprightly, a little better suited to the color palette they chose for him. After all, we had just succeeded in ousting the Taliban and building a better Afghanistan:


"The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own. (Applause.) America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We'll be partners in rebuilding that country. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai. (Applause.)"
You don't hear much about Afghanistan any more. Nor do you hear much about Osama Bin Laden, who even in 2002's SOTU speech was not mentioned once, even though capturing him and bringing him to justice was the original stated goal of the Afghanistan campaign.

So there they were. Bush's speechwriters, confronting the reality of the Bush presidency, wondering how on earth they were going to get it into telegenic shape before the cameras started rolling. The poor thing was bulging out at every conceivable seam. The Afghanistan triumph was unraveling, American soldiers were still being blown up regularly in Iraq, there were no WMDs to be found anywhere (except maybe over the border in Syria? But then what if we want to invade Syria someday, it'll be so embarrassing when we don't find them there either).

The economic 'recovery' wasn't fooling anyone, Valerie Plame's name was still in the news, Cheney had taken one too many supervillain pills and gone chortling to reporters about how much he enjoys operating in stealth behind the scenes moohoohahaha, and seniors were starting to quit the AARP in protest over its endorsement of the pseudo-prescription drug bill. Language is a marvelous thing with many powers, but all the same, there it was: a 2000 pound pig that all the lipstick in the world couldn't pretty up. What could they do?

They did their best, I suppose. Steroid use in professional athletics. Same-sex marriage. Faith-based initiatives. Ashley Pearson, age 2 - no, 10 - asking what she could do for her country. And, of course, the obligatory insistence that the war in Iraq was justified, no matter what anyone else might say.

Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Over 500 American soldiers and uncounted Iraqis died so that we could save the world from weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

It's a damn good thing this is an election year. That pig has been through enough, and so have we. I've already made my decision. The only way I'm going to watch the 2005 State of the Union address is if someone other than Bush is giving it.

Adder boy

CONCUPISCENT

Understand, I am a marching band veteran. I know that the halftime show as a genre is never going to be the subject of a retrospective at the Met. One time long ago I was having lunch with an English friend of my father's and I tried to explain to him what marching bands do. I managed to convey that basically a bunch of people get tricked out in insane uniforms and walk around making interesting geometric patterns on the field while playing popular tunes that acquire a weird kind of gigantism after they have been arranged for 20 trumpets, a dozen sousaphones, a drumline 30 yards long and 150 flutes and clarinets that you STILL can't hear as a gaggle of twirlers, tumblers, and flingers of things cavort around them. He looked at me and said, "Why?" And of course there is no answer.

Halftime has always been about pure, pointless spectacle. But it used to be that the Super Bowl halftime show's main problem was an overload of wholesomeness. They'd truck in some group like "Up With (Perky White) People!" and do something unbearably cheesy and have a lot of people flip colored placards around on the field and eventually call it a day. But as the Super Bowl bloats on advertising revenues, the halftime show has also ballooned to a monstrous size, and now dorkiness is not enough. MTV has come to the halftime show, and the results are not pretty.



Then we moved to the rap segment of the program, and Kid Rock came bounding out wearing the American flag as a poncho. Doesn't anyone else see a problem with 'honoring' the flag by sweating into it? Do people really feel that Kid Rock's pit stains ennoble this inspiring symbol of American freedom? Is the idea that he's showing his respect for the flag by enriching it with his precious bodily fluids? In any case, we were all worried, as the jets of flame leaped higher behind him, that the poncho would catch fire. We could see the headlines: "KID ROCK SUPER BOWL TRAGEDY FUELS PUSH FOR FLAG-BURNING AMENDMENT."

And then there was Janet.

Back in the day, the video for "Rhythm Nation" made Janet one of the founding mothers of hip-hop. It made it all the more depressing to see what MTV did to it after spending 10-15 years refining its aesthetic of titillation. Basically, I think the music industry has been pushing its more-is-more, raunchier-is-better treatment of sex so aggressively that its audience is suffering a giant case of T&A fatigue. I blame Britney for much of this; she has really been working on emulating and even surpassing Madonna's sleaziness without incorporating any of the intelligence and creativity that used to drive it. So now, the unison step-show-esque choreography that made the original "Rhythm Nation" video so important has been transformed into a chaotic mess of writhing limbs and simulated sex performed by a harem of nubile young things who are all dressed as if they are the sales staff of Mad Max's Postapocalyptic Fetish Shop And Bordello. By the time Miss Jackson (if you're nasty) shows up, she's surrounded by so many nearly-naked bodies that you can't even focus on anything long enough to figure out what the hell is going on, let alone be aroused by it.

So by the time Justin Timberlake rips off half of Janet's bustier, why is anyone surprised? Tasteless? Prurient? Represents women as fetishized sex toys who can be violated at will for male pleasure? Hasn't that boat already sailed?

After all the skin they've already shown in this broadcast--from the gratuitous shots of the navel-baring cheerleaders to the army of tanned and toned blonde women who were climbing around on those wooden horses during Toby Keith's number to the harem of backup dancers--CBS is going to do the Puritan thing over one revealed breast? And why pick on the breast, anyway? It's OK for P. Diddy to perform his number with one hand on the family jewels at all time, but people can't handle Janet's breast? What are we, Ashcroft?

After all, there are things that are a lot more obscene than Janet Jackson's naked breast. A $1 trillion deficit, for instance.

O O <-- The US president needs this.

"I find it very interesting that when the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole, and you crawled in it," the president said. "And our brave troops, combined with good intelligence, found you, and you'll be brought to justice, something you did not afford the people you brutalized in your own country."


Bush, on "capture" of Saddam

The media tries to portray Bush as some kind of fearless cowboy, but when we look at reality, we see a different picture. During the Cuban missile crisis, when a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR was seemingly imminent, President Kennedy stayed in Washington, at the White House. He refused to be intimidated, and in doing so I truly believe he gave all Americans strength and courage through his actions. Contrast this with Bush on 9/11 - he ran around the country like a scared rabbit, afraid to return to Washington DC, preferring to hide in a bunker in Nebraska until he could be sure the coast was clear. When asked about his thoughts during that day, he actually said "I was just trying to get out of harm's way". Read about the security detail that he takes wherever he goes, and the lengths they go to to protect him, and you'll see the real George Bush - a coward of the first degree. Beneath his cowboy façade, stripped of his money and family name and power, is a scared little man.

Let's make sure we send this scared little man home to Texas in November, where he belongs.

VISIT US ?

I'm glad I got to see the world before it closed up shop.

In the past decade, I've been lucky enough – blessed enough – to travel to four continents. The countries I've toured are a literal A to Z, as I road-tripped from coast-to-coast in America and hiked through the mountains of Zimbabwe. And now, both within and without our nation, prospects for mind-expanding travel are narrowing to the aperture of a pin, or perhaps to the invisible width of a bit of data.


Today, the United States began photographing and fingerprinting non-U.S. citizens as they entered the country. The program, US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) is budgeted at $380 million. An estimated 24 million individuals each year will have to pass two finger scans and have their photographs taken as they enter the United States. The government's hope is that it will catch terrorists and those who overstay their visas.


In the words of Homeland Security director Tom Ridge, "As the world community combats terrorism ... you're going to see more and more countries going to a form of biometric identification to confirm identities." Biometrics is a developing, and lucrative, arena of technologies that map and quantify the body digitally.


Ironically, the International Biometric Industry Association had scheduled its annual conference for September 11, 2001, in Orlando, Florida. The association re-scheduled the conference, with a keynote called "Homeland Security and Biometrics," for February 2002. Since then, the financial prospects for biometrics firms have soared. In much the same way that the war on Iraq has improved the fortunes of military outsourcing firms like Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root, our nation's response to the September 11 attacks is feeding the coffers of biometrics firms – for an uncertain reward.


This holiday season, the United States blocked or delayed several international flights into the country because of security concerns. Ultimately, no arrests were made, and the government admits there may have been no terrorist plot to begin with. In fact, some of the flights had spelling errors on their passenger manifests that caused the delays. More specifically, a test of the US-VISIT program in Atlanta screened over 20,000 passengers and found just 21 people with suspicious records. None of them were suspected terrorists – rather, they had been convicted of prior offenses including statutory rape.


On the one hand, no one wants criminals entering the United States. But at a cost of $380 million dollars a year, this program is wildly expensive and does not seem to net its target of terrorists (who may well have sophisticated ways of foiling the system). Instead, it may deter legitimate tourists and hurt an already ailing airline industry.


And moves like this one do not just affect non-estadounidenses. The tightening of global travel restrictions sends a message to Americans that the world is as closed to us as the United States appears to be to those on the outside. They add to the already rampant paranoia that the world is merely a dangerous (and not also a wondrous) place and the only safe haven is a gated community within a shuttered nation. Our country is becoming a fortress of our own devising, both psychologically and tangibly. For example, last week Brazil began fingerprinting and photographing American visitors as a tit-for-tat.


"At first, most of the Americans were angered at having to go through all this," said Wagner Castilho, a press officer for the Brazilian federal police. "But they were usually more understanding once they learned that Brazilians are subjected to the same treatment in the U.S."


We can't expect special treatment on the global stage. If we restrict access to the United States, others will restrict our access to the world. And that would be a devastating shame. In an era of terror, anger and recriminations, one of the healing balms is a one-on-one connection with people of other nations. We cannot heal the rifts in this fractious world by hiding in our domain. No screening program will make us absolutely secure. And if we retreat – attempting to become an island fortress – we will endanger not only our humanity, but our long-term security as well.

SEMANTICS OF EMPIRE

By M. Shahid Alam

“Saddam Hussein is a man who is willing to gas his own people …” -- George Bush, March 22, 2002
“As he (George Bush) said, any person that would gas his own people is a threat to the world.” -- Scott McClellan, White House spokesperson, March 31, 2002
“Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people…” -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“He poison-gassed his own people.” -- Al Gore, December 16, 1998
We might glean a few insights about the semantics of the global order – and the reality it tries to mask – from the way in which the United States has framed the moral case against Saddam.

Saddam’s unspeakable crime is that he has “tortured his own people.” He has “killed his own people.” He has “gassed his own people.” He has “poison-gassed his own people.” In all the accusations, Saddam stands inseparable from his own people.

Rarely do his accusers charge that Saddam “tortured people,” “gassed people,” “gassed Iraqis,” or “killed Iraqis.” A google search for “gassed his own people” and “Saddam” produced 5980 hits. Another search for “gassed people” and Saddam produced only 276 hits.

It would appear that the indictment of Saddam gathers power, conviction, irrefutability, by adding the possessive, proprietary, emphatic ‘own’ to the people tortured, gassed or killed. What does the grammar of accusations say about the metrics of American values?
It is revealing. For a country that claims to speak in the name of man, abstract man, universal man, the charge is not that Saddam has killed people, that he has committed murders, mass murders. Instead, the prosecution indicts him for killing a people who stand in a specific relation to the killer: they are his own people.

This betrays tribalism. It springs from a perception that fractures the indivisibility of mankind. It divides men into tribes. It divides people into “us” and “them:” “ours” and “theirs.” It elevates “us” above “them:” “our” kind above “their” kind. It reveals a sensibility that can feel horror only over the killing of one’s own kind.

Life is sacred at the Core. In the United States, we have an inalienable right to life. It is protected by law; it cannot be taken away without due process. Americans are proud, sedate, in the illusion that their President never kills his own people; their history is proof of this. An American President would never think of killing his own people.

Saddam’s crimes are most foul because he has tortured his own people; he has killed his own people; he has gassed his own people. He has violated the edict of nature. His actions are un-American.

Saddam’s unnatural crimes trouble us, however, not because we feel empathy for his victims. His crimes predict trouble for us. If he can kill his own kind how much more willingly would he kill us? In Scott McClellan’s version: “any person that would gas his own people is a threat to the world (read the United States).”

Of course, Saddam might plead innocence to this charge. “You’ve got it all wrong about the people I kill. The Kurds I killed are not my own people. They are not even Arabs, and, worse, they wanted to break up Iraq and create their own independent Kurdistan. What would you do to your Blacks, Amerindians, Hispanics or Asians, if they took up arms to carve out independent states of their own? Were not the Southern whites your own people? But you killed a half million of them when they took up arms against you in the 1860s. More recently, you killed your own kind at Waco.”

Now, as the United States prepares to try Saddam for torturing, gassing and killing his own people, does this absolve us of killing the same people because they are not our own? Is the killing of Iraqis a crime only when the perpetrators are local thugs – once in our pay – and not when we take up the killing, and execute it more efficiently, on our account?

In the colonial era, racism inoculated people against feeling empathy towards those other people in the Periphery. Those otherpeople were children, barbarians, savages, if not worse. We had to kill them if they could not be useful to us, or if they stood in the way of ourprogress. There wasn’t much squeamishness about this. It was good policy.

In the era of the Cold War, we went easy on the language of racism, though not always on its substance. When we sent our men and women to kill hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Koreans, we justified this by claiming that we were doing it to protect ourfreedoms. Of course, it was all right to kill for ourfreedoms.

However, in the new era, the US learned to contract the killing to thugs in the Periphery. This was a win-win for us. We kept our hands free from bloodstains, so we could smell like roses. At the same time, we could point to colored killers (in our pay), and say, “Look, they are still incapable of civilization.” What is more, we could use their savagery as justification for killing colored peoples on our own account.

More recently, the US has gone back to killing on its own account. Starting in the 1980s, taking advantage of their indebtedness – which we helped create – we began a general economic warfare against the Periphery, stripping down their economies for takeover by Core capital. In this new war, the colonial governors and viceroys have been replaced by two banks – the World Bank and the IMF – and a trade enforcer, the WTO. Like the famines in British India, this war has produced tens of millions of hidden victims, dead from hunger and disease.

In 1990, the US introduced a new, deadlier form of economic warfare: it placed Iraq under a total siege. This instrument was chosen because we knew that Iraq was vulnerable: it imported much of its food, medicines, medical equipment, machinery and spare parts, nearly all paid for by oil exports. Imposed to end Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the siege ended some thirteen years later only after the US had occupied Iraq. Only after the siege had killed more than a million and a half Iraqis, half of them children.

Once again, the US is the world’s nerve center of reactionary ideologies. The post-War restraints on the use of deadly force now gone, the United States revels in the use of deadly force. Not that alone, it wants to be seen using deadly force. It wants to be feared, even loathed for its magnificent power, raining death from the skies as never before, like no other power before. At manufacturing death, we brook no competition.

Imperialism, militarism and wars create their own rationale. In time, Islamist enemies were elevated and magnified, with help from the Zionists. Rogue states stepped out of the shadows. The swamps began to spawn terrorists. Weapons of mass destruction proliferated. Sagely Orientalists suddenly awoke to an Arab “democracy deficit.” Islam, they declared, is misogynist, anti-modernist and anti-democratic. The civilizing mission was Arabized. The musty odors of jingoism, militarism, racism and religious bigotry infested the air. Like a godsend, the attacks of September 11, 2001, galvanized America. Imperialism and racism rode into town, cheek by jowl, hand in hand.

The new colonization project has now snagged its chief prize. An Arab Ozymandias brought low. The man who tortured, killed and gassed his own people is in American hands. Our civilizing mission displays its trophy. We are repeatedly invited to peep into the oral orifice of this bedraggled Saddam. “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.”

The images of Saddam the captive, haggard, resigned, defanged, are images of our raw power. Our power to appoint, anoint, finance and arm surrogates in the Periphery: and when they go wrong, our power to wage war against their people; destroy their civilian infrastructure, poison their air, water and soil with uranium; lay siege to their economy; and, finally to invade and occupy their country. We will go to any lengths to save the people of the Periphery from our tyrants.

Come, then, wretched denizens of the Periphery, there is cause to rejoice. Lift your Cokes and offer a toast to the Boy Emperor even as he launches plans to establish a thousand years of Pax Americana. He will bring down all outmoded tyrannies, and root out rogue states, dictatorships and monarchies. He will extirpate all fundamentalists, hunt down all terrorists, track down all drug lords, and scrap all unfriendly WMDs. This will be the great cleansing of all self-created challenges to the Empire. In the end nothing will stand between the Empire and the Periphery, between Capital and Labor, between Thesis and Anti-Thesis.

Rejoice, the Empire is advancing its day of reckoning with history.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. His last book, Poverty from the Wealth of Nations, was published by Palgrave in 2000. He may be reached at m.alam@neu.edu. Visit his webpage at http://msalam.net. © M. Shahid Alam

Dont count your citizens even after they are DEAD

Here's a nice AP story on how the Coalition Provisional Authority--the U.S. backed Iraqi interim government--has instructed the Health Ministry to stop trying to get an accurate count of civilian casualties in Iraq.

The U.S. army doesn't keep track; the British army doesn't keep track; now, an Iraqi institution that was trying to keep track has been ordered not to by their new "government." Hmmmm.

This is liberation Mafia-style, and the doctor who was interviewed about the reasons for this change is apparently willing to risk reprisal in order to let it be known that the count is not being done because "the CPA doesn't want this done":

The ministry began its survey at the end of July, when shaky nationwide communication links began to improve. It sent letters to all hospitals and clinics in Iraq, asking them to send back details of civilians killed or wounded in the war.

Many hospitals responded with statistics, Mohsen said, but last month Shabinder summoned her and told her that the minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, wanted the count halted. He also told her not to release the partial information she had already collected, she said.

"He told me, 'You should move far away from this subject,'" Mohsen said. "I don't know why."

Because if you keep going, you'll wake up to find your favorite horse's bloody severed head lying between your satin bedsheets, maybe?

I mean, I don't know if we'll get a better example any time soon of what is wrong with this version of "liberation." First of all, we clearly don't give a flying @#$! about 'the Iraqi people,' since our army was never interested in determining how many of 'the Iraqi people' they had killed. Second, the Iraqi interim government is clearly unenthusiastic, unwilling, or unable to go against the wishes of their U.S. backers, since they are interested in suppressing information that would be damaging to them. And third, as reported by Dr. Mohsen, the order was conveyed in a conversation that suggests one of Don Corleone's lieutenants delivering a warning to a business rival than a government bureaucrat passing along a memo. And fourth, of course, it doesn't augur well for the new Iraq doing much in the freedom-of-information or freedom-of-speech line, does it?

But then why should it surprise me. The Bush administration has never been a fan of having things counted, be the bodies or ballots.

Afghans "Understand" Why US Soldiers Kill Their Children

Afghan men pray at graves of nine children killed in U.S. air strike

We have found the solution to our troubled military occupation of Iraq: understanding.

What we need is more “understanding” Iraqis. Why can’t they be as understanding as the Afghans?

Yesterday, the US military carried out an airstrike against the central Afghan village of Hutala. Afterwards, one man and nine children lay dead.

An Associated Press reporter described “dozens of small craters from the U.S. plane's guns and pools of blood and articles of childrens' clothing strewn around.”

"They were just playing ball and then the shots came down," one villager who lost his eight-year-old son Habibullah said to reporters.

Habibullah means “Beloved of God,” and indeed the boy has returned to his beloved, with a little help from President Bush.

In the aftermath, US military spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty described today how “understanding” the Afghan villagers were about losing their children.

“They’re pretty understanding,” said Hilferty. “They’ve been through years of war. They're not happy, but I think it meant a great deal to them that my commander, Gen. [Lloyd] Austin, came out and personally expressed his condolences.”

If only Iraqis can be a bit more understanding. Perhaps they need a few more years of military occupation, home demolitions, military checkpoints, and more dead kids before they can “understand” us better.

We belong to God, and to Him is our return. (Qur’an 2:156)
[Contributed by Ahmed Nassef, MWU]

Allahu-Akbar

Assalmu' alaikum Wa Rahmat-Allahi Wa Barakaatuhu

Inhumane treatment for "King of Arabs"

Contributed by Al-Jazeera news

The humiliating images of Saddam Hussein's capture by US forces risk increasing Arab support for the Iraqi resistance and sharpening their appetite for revenge, analysts said on Monday.

"I felt extremely humiliated," said Egyptian writer Sayyid Nassar, who interviewed Saddam three weeks before the US-led invasion of Iraq on 20 March. "I felt it was not only a humiliation of Arabs but of all humanity.

"By shaving his beard, a symbol of virility in Iraq and in the Arab world, the Americans committed an act that symbolizes humiliation in our region, where getting shaved by one's enemy means robbing him of his will," he said.

"It's also a humiliation for all Arab leaders and a message telling them that he who does not enter the poultry yard of the Americans will experience the same fate," he said.


Saddam's arrest "will not destroy the Iraqi resistance against the US occupier," and will encourage "feelings of Arab solidarity with the Iraqi fighters," he predicted.

"On the contrary, the resistance will grow and change shape," he warned.

"There will be a kind of creativity in acts of resistance, which will diversify and intensify to wash away their shame," he said.

The Egyptian Islamist lawyer Muntasir al-Zayyat agreed that Saddam's capture would "open the door wide to the resistance."

"It is true that we all deplored the humiliating way Saddam was arrested and his capture added to the feelings of frustration. However, the positive side is that it will intensify the resistance," he said.


"All opponents of Saddam, who refused to fight the American occupier for fear of being counted among the former president's supporters, will no longer hesitate to join the resistance," Zayyat said.

"The image that former president Saddam Hussein gave during his arrest by American occupation forces is a painful and shocking image," said Ibrahim Nafie, the editor in chief of the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram. "It's an image that no Arab wished for the president of one of the most important Arab states," Nafie wrote.

The Iraqi political analyst Ali al-Dabbagh, who lives in the United Arab Emirates, said Arabs were shocked and humiliated because of the "collapse of a myth" which forced "Arabs to face their sad reality and impotence.

Scoundrels and their white lies

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction."
- Colin Powell, May 4 2003

Truth about Iraq ?

Baghdad 07 December 2003: The sign reads, "Iraqi Public Service Academy," but for the people of Iraq, the soldier tells the story.
(Photo: Agence France-Presse)

Sweatshop inc.

If any of you have connections to the folks who produce "The Simpsons," I have an idea for a great opening sequence. Marge hears that the local discount store is offering DVD players for $29 so she gets on line with a zillion others to wait for the store to open at 6:00 am. In fact, she's first in line. When the siren blares, Marge is trampled by the frenzied bargain-hunters behind her and is found lying unconscious on top of a DVD player. Marge is airlifted to the local hospital where, after she recovers from a seizure, she's told that the owner of the discount store has offered to put a DVD player on hold for her.

All right...so I didn't just make that scenario up. It actually happened to Patricia VanLester at an Orange City, Florida Wal-Mart SuperCenter on November 28, 2003.

"She got pushed down, and they walked over her like a herd of elephants," said VanLester's sister, Linda Ellzey. "I told them, `Stop stepping on my sister! She's on the ground!' All they cared about was a stupid DVD player."

Apparently, VanLester and her sister also cared enough about those stupid DVD players to be on line at 6:00 am to buy one.

Wal-Mart is America's largest employer. General Motors used to be America's largest employer but GM is too busy being Mexico's largest employer nowSso it's up Wal-Mart to keep consumerism alive and trampling.

Wal-Mart was founded by the late Sam Walton. Forget John-boy, these are the real Waltons and their story is a far more accurate illustration of the real American Dream. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based behemoth claims that more than 93 million Americans shop in at least one of its over 4,400 discount stores in the US. Those tens of millions have helped make Wal-Mart the single largest seller of pop music in America but you won1t find anyone trampled during a sale of rap music with "explicit" lyrics because Wal-Mart doesn't sell those kind of CDs. Rifles, knives, handcuffs, or handgun ammunition? No problem.

With roughly half of their employees-I mean, "associates"-eligible for food stamps, the Waltons remain steadfastly anti-union. As an internal Wal-Mart document explained: "Wal-Mart is opposed to the unionization of its associates. Any suggestion that the company is neutral on the subject or that it encourages associates to join labor organizations is not true." To drive this policy home, Wal-Mart has become the world's largest importer of Chinese-made products and, the subsequent sweatshop-level prices have been know to cause a stampede or two.

"We are very disappointed this happened," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Karen Burk said after the VanLester incident. "We want her to come back as a shopper."

Ms. Burk needn't worry. As Louis Uchitelle explains in The New York Times ("Why Americans Must Keep Spending," December 1, 2003), despite a tough economy, "Consumers will keep spending anyway, going deeper into debt to do so if they must. They have too many needs, some that were luxuries only yesterday." Doing his part to promote holiday shopping (and predatory capitalism), Uchitelle says, "Consumers in America spend because they feel they must spend."

Obnoxiously repugnant Texans

I am a 48-year-old lifelong Democrat who has the geographic misfortune to be living in the heart of Bush country (West Texas). Around these parts, virtually any attempt at a rational discussion of Bush's failed policies, both foreign and domestic, is doomed to failure for two reasons:

a) You get the knee-jerk response of "Aw, hail, boy, y'all are just one o' them dag-gone liberals," as though the simple fact of my political affiliation totally negates any facts I may try to present;

OR:

b) Some smug, self-righteous cotton-eyed schmoe with an "Amurrica Love It or Leave It" bumper sticker on his Ford F-150 (and who knows less about politics than I do about particle physics) will ask the question, "Well, what would you have done differently?"

My questions for you are these: Is it really necessary for anyone who disagrees with Bush to have a whole slate of alternative strategies on hand to trot out on demand for any flag-waving yahoo? Is it not enough to SEE that something is wrong? After all, one need not be a dietician to know that a steady diet of crap isn't good for you, and neither should he have to present an alternative diet when he points this out.

I'm hoping you can give me some answers.

Thanks,


Alan Lubbock,
Texas

The Sterile Zone

In an old episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called "Remember Me," Dr. Beverly Crusher, having noticed with alarm that people she knows are disappearing right and left, discovers that the spatial universe around her seems to be shrinking as well.

Finally - realizing, as she says, that "if there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong wtih the universe" - she asks the computer to define "the universe." The computer says, promptly and cheerfully, "The universe is a spheroid region, 705 meters in diameter." Dr. Crusher is very much bothered by this, and sets out immediately to try to correct the problem and restore the universe to its former amplitude.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, would find the computer's answer enormously comforting. A spheroid region 705 meters in diameter is just about as much as his crowd can handle. Give Bush a nice comfy spheroid region 705 meters in diameter, of which the only inhabitants are him, his advisors, and a few hundred heavily armed security goons, and he'll never trouble himself about what happened to the rest of the world. He can go on giving his orders and making his pronouncements and slinging lies and bullshit, and everyone in the universe will smile peacefully upon him and pat him on the head and offer him treats. In a spheroid universe 705 meters in diameter, Bush could finally be the wise, compassionate, benevolent, all-powerful ruler that Rove keeps saying he is.

Well, right now, Bush's universe is a spheroid region 705 meters in diameter. They don't call it "the universe," of course; they call it a "sterile zone." For today, Bush is in England, where according to the terms of a deal worked out after much wrangling with the British authorities, Bush will be enclosed in a region of space which will be uncontaminated by human life - with the exception, of course, of the members of the official British welcoming committee, and Bush's own enormous entourage.

The term is suggestive; one imagines Bush enthroned in state on a giant petri dish, coasting down stainless steel corridors toward a hermetic oxygen chamber. One also recalls a much earlier episode of Star Trek, in which a crazed automated space probe which has been zipping around the universe destroying any life form judged to be imperfect finally ends up destroying itself while bleating "Sterilize! Sterilize!"

But of course this leads to more sobering real-world associations; the "racial hygiene" practiced by eugenists in the first half of the twentieth century, the "ethnic cleansing" that closed out its last decade. And by then one is wondering what it costs to keep Bush inside his pristine little playpen, happily oblivious to the chaos raging in the world that encloses his safe and sterile universe.

Thanks to London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, and a general putting-down of feet amongst the British authorities, it won't cost as much as it might have. The Guardian reported Sunday on all the things that the U.S. authorities asked for and won't get. It's a long list. Among the more startling demands that were denied: diplomatic immunity for American security personnel, so that they could shoot protestors with impunity, and closing down the subway system for the duration of the visit (in case a terrorist somehow managed to smuggle a MOAB onto a tube train and detonate it underneath the Bush motorcade). Authorities also refused to allow the Bush team to tote in "a piece of military hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade," or to patrol the skies above London with military helicopters.

Most important, control over security will remain with London's Metropolitan Police (14,000 of them) and the massive protest expected for Thursday will in fact be allowed to march to Trafalgar Square along a route that will take them past Downing Street and Westminster Abbey, where Bush will be spending the afternoon.

As an American who has been doing my best to voice opposition to my own president any way I can since he started bombing Afghanistan, I find watching the preparations for the protests accompanying Bush's visit to London both exhilarating and depressing. Bush remarked the other day that he will enjoy being in a country where dissent can be expressed freely. I'd enjoy it too; but unfortunately I'm stuck in this country. And in this country, most of what the British authorities rejected as unreasonable and outrageous has become standard operating procedure.

If you've ever protested a Bush appearance, you know what I'm talking about: the helicopters overhead, the metal fences penning you up into your "free speech zone" half a mile up the road, the detachment of riot police - and, if you do happen to catch a glimpse of the presidential motorcade, you will also be glimpsing that mini-gun that the London authorities rejected as overkill. It is true that nobody has ever tried to shut down the Metro during the big marches in DC; but that's probably because Bush is never home when the protestors come to town. He and his sterile spheroid region are always on the road then, ensconced inside a $2,000 a plate fund-raising dinner or hovering over Camp David or bobbing along the spread of that ranch in Crawford.

But in England, where they are doing a much better job of hanging onto the civil liberties that our first amendment was supposed to protect, there's going to be a lot more pressure applied to the outer edges of Bush's sterile spheroid region. Indeed, Bush's shrinking itinerary shows that his universe has already contracted significantly. A planned speech to Parliament has been cancelled, because Bush's handlers are unwilling to expose him to the ferocious heckling he would certainly receive. Instead, Bush will be doing what he does best: meeting and greeting at expensive private banquets and delivering short, carefully scripted, empty speeches to hand-picked audiences who have been thoroughly screened for potential contaminants before they are allowed into the sterile zone.

But as Bush browses the tombs of the poets in Westminster Abbey or dines at 10 Downing Street, it will be hard to ignore the noise of 100,000 some odd protestors passing by in the street outside. That ought to be audible, even over the noise of all those poets spinning madly in their graves as the cowboy boots of the man who has singlehandedly brought the English language to the verge of extinction strut across the flagstones above them.

So for three days, Bush will be exposed - however slightly - to the universe the rest of us inhabit. For three days, he will savor the pleasures of being in a country where the authorities do not automatically assume that he is the center of the universe, and who are not interested in turning their entire city into a "sterile zone" simply to pander to his paranoia. For three days, tens of thousands of actual human beings will gather in London's public spaces to voice their protest against Bush's program of endless war. For three days, the bubble boy will be menaced by the infection of dissent, as those nasty organisms massing in protest in London's public spaces threaten to breach the borders of his sterile zone.

Well. You've got three days, England. We're counting on you. Don't let anyone give you any crap about being "anti-American." Hundreds of thousands of Americans like me understand perfectly well that the more you love America, the more you get to hate the people who are currently dismantling it from the top down. If you can make a dent in that sterile zone, you will be doing this country an enormous favor. So go on out there. And whatever you say, say it loud. Noise doesn't carry too well in a vaccuum, and it's hard to hear in the sterile zone.

And then after three days, Bush will be rushed back to America, and he and his handlers will collapse in relief and gratitude as the borders of that spheroid rush away into the darkness, and the sterile zone silently expands. Lulled by the sighing of the filters that surround him, Bush will sleep peacefully again, undisturbed in the silence of America the pacified. America, where the voice of the press has been muted into a continual murmur of praise; America, where the infection of dissent has been safely quarantined, and an ever-vigilant team of specialists provides a constant supply of antidotes. America, which is suffocating inside its fortress of duct tape and plastic as it slowly and surely becomes one big sterile zone