The Scallion Takes a Vacation

July 29, 2003. The Scallion is slated to pack up its pack and hit the dusty trail for a much needed vacation over the next week and a half. We plan to return on August 12, 2003. Love, hope, and joy to our faithful readers until then!

Keystone Cop Military Finally Makes Good?

July 29, 2003. According to reports recently splattered all over U.S. news papers and media, Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, have been killed in an attack by the U.S. military. American media have also made a meal of publishing grisly photographs of the two dead men and the attack's aftermath.

Zoe Owens, Ph.D. philosopher and author of such introspectively religious books as “Jesus Holy Christ Almighty,” remarked on this latest media circus. “Well, isn't this just a timely little public relations pearl for the Bush white house! Consider the facts. Bush is slipping in the polls: American troops are still dying in Iraq at the approximate rate of one per day; the economy is still hemorrhaging jobs; the market isn't rebounding as quickly or as strongly as anybody would like; and, amid rampant contradictions even in a right-wing-sympathetic media, people are slowly and timidly but increasingly questioning Bush's deceptions anent the invasion. With no Jessica Lynch to rescue, the morale of the military deployed in Iraq has been at an all-time low—and the people at home haven't been feeling much better. So, I find the timing on this 'victory' more than a little fishy. With all the lies that the Bush administration has promulgated to the American people since its earliest inception—court appointment?—I find myself asking some truly cynical questions these days: how can we even be sure that Uday and Qusay Hussein are really dead ... or, if so, that the American military was truly responsible for their deaths?

“Even supposing that Saddam's two favorite sons are indeed dead from U.S. rocket attacks, there is still a lot to strain credibility beyond the breaking point here. Consider the ubiquitous photos being shown of the attack's aftermath—the blood, the obviously dead bodies. The American public was forbidden access to such realistic accounts of Iraqi civilian deaths during the invasion, yet they are now being treated to an immersion not unlike the ubiquitous video of the World Trade Center collapse—the Iraqis are suffering even worse inundation. If Aaron Brown is to be taken at his word, then one must conclude that it is only in 'bad taste' to show the horror of war when innocent civilians are the ones being blown to bits—apparently, it is in the most perfectly acceptable best of taste to show the blood and guts of 'bad guys' being strewn hither, thither, and yon. As always, while I have no real sympathy for Saddam Hussein or his sons, I find the American media and government's hypocritical double standard thoroughly unacceptable, even if it has become standard operating procedure.

“Then, there are the items 'found' in the offices of the two dead men. According to 'See How They Ran' by Evan Thomas and Rod Norland in the prescient August 4 issue of Newsweek, Uday and Qusay were found with painkillers, numerous bottles of cologne, Viagra, unopened packages of men's underwear, dress shirts, a silk tie, and a single condom, not to mention huge stashes of cash and two ladies' purses. Just think about this odd little shopping list for a minute: doesn't it strike you as being even the teensiest bit contrived? Viagra—oh, please! Why aren't we hearing about Bush's use of Viagra? I assume he's too busy privately boozing, praying for forgiveness for privately boozing, and acting the part of a spoiled juvenile bully playing with his toy guns and tanks to give a damn about shagging Laura—to her infinite relief, I'm sure.

“Why don't Bush and the media just hoist a mammoth neon sign flashing the word 'PROPAGANDA'? Times and psychological profiles may have changed, but the government's dirty tricks have not. Remember the desk, the red pajamas, the cocaine, and the porn that the U.S. military invasion force 'found' in the office of Chile's popular, fairly-elected, socially-minded, leftist president, Allende, when they ousted and captured him in order to install the rightist dictator Pinochet? Remember how these very same items were also 'found' in the office of Panama's Noriega when Bush-the-elder had him ousted? If none of this strikes you as being fishy, then I suggest you read 'Like Father, Like Son' in the June 17, 2003 edition of The Scallion, which also suggests two extremely informative web pages: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/39/interventions.html for a list of U.S. 'interventions' abroad and, for a discussion of Chile, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Pinochet.htm. Even though the U.S. has sometimes ousted dictators installed and once highly favored by its own government, the sick, sad truth is that, then and now, socially-minded governments like Allende's don't sufficiently benefit the bankrolls of American big business—which reserves the 'right' to remove such inconveniences at will by whatever means necessary.

“Hasn't anybody noticed that the U.S. military still hasn't found Osama bin Laden? Doesn't anybody care? Are the U.S. and Saudi ruling classes so hopelessly, incestuously, and financially intertwined that Bush really doesn't want Osama found? And what other stuff-and-nonsense fabrications do these neocons plan to peddle to the gullible American public? It's too bad that Americans didn't learn from the politically useful yet locally damaging invasions perpetrated by the past three administrations—I don't know how much longer the American public can go on turning a blind eye to its government and letting history repeat itself before everyone gets badly burned.”

Global Warming Now a Weapon of Mass Destruction

July 28, 2003. In today's edition of The Guardian, John Houghton reports that global warming “kills more people than terrorism, yet Blair and Bush do nothing” (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4721146,00.html). To quote the opening paragraphs of the article: “If political leaders have one duty above all others, it is to protect the security of their people. Thus it was, according to the prime minister, to protect Britain's security against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction that this country went to war in Iraq. And yet our long-term security is threatened by a problem at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons, or, indeed, international terrorism: human-induced climate change.

"As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a 'weapon of mass destruction.'

"Like terrorism, this weapon knows no boundaries. It can strike anywhere, in any form—a heatwave in one place, a drought or a flood or a storm surge in another. Nor is this just a problem for the future. The 1990s were probably the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years and 1998 the warmest year. Global warming is already upon us.

"The World Meteorological Organisation warned this month that extreme weather events already seem to be becoming more frequent as a result. The US mainland was struck by 562 tornadoes in May (which incidentally saw the highest land temperatures globally since records began in 1880), killing 41 people. The developing world is the hardest hit: extremes of climate tend to be more intense at low latitudes, and poorer countries are less able to cope with disasters. Pre-monsoon temperatures this year in India reached a blistering 49C (120F)—5C (9F) above normal.

"Once this killer heatwave began to abate, 1,500 people lay dead—half the number killed outright in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre. While no one can ascribe a single weather event to climate change with any degree of scientific certainty, higher maximum temperatures are one of the most predictable impacts of accelerated global warming, and the parallels—between global climate change and global terrorism—are becoming increasingly obvious.”

Houghton goes on to remark that the U.S. “is the world's biggest polluter, and that, with only one twentieth of the world's population, it produces a quarter of its greenhouse gas emissions. But the U.S. government, in an abdication of leadership of epic proportions, is refusing to take the problem seriously—and Britain, presumably because Blair wishes not to offend George Bush—is beginning to fall behind, too. Emissions from the U.S. are up 14% on those in 1990 and are projected to rise by a further 12% over the next decade.” He points out that the world badly needs leadership to protect the environment, and he is hoping someone like Toady Blair will step up and lead, opposing the U.S. “until such time as it no longer has an oilman for president.”

One can only hope that a true coalition of the willing will rise up to support whomever takes on the challenge.

The Next Karl Rove

July 27, 2003. A group of young, privileged fascists calling themselves the College Republican National Committee (CNRC) lovingly planned and staged a convention by and for the Karl Rove-wannabes of the twenty-something generation.

How privileged are these CNRC adherents? According to the Washington Post, young boys like Eric Hoplin, the twenty-four-year-old former executive director of the CNRC, think nothing of lavishing $80,000—more than most Americans gross in a year—for campaigns stretching across the majority of the fifty states to win their CNRC posts (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54329-2003Jul27.html). Calling themselves foot soldiers of the Republican party, these youngsters chant "We love Tom" before a speech given at their Saturday convention by Tom DeLay, who demonizes Democrats by calling them one step above “Bolsheviks” and whom, despite his French surname, CNRC members introduce as “the man all of us want to be when we grow up.” DeLay appeals to his adoring followers by making fun of Ted Kennedy's weight. Other speakers at the convention criticized what they call the “liberal” media and dehumanized Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich by calling him an “alien.” Conservative writer and ex-socialist David Horowitz elicited cheers and righteous anger by decrying that American academia has been overtaken by hippie professors. Attendees strategized how to introduce conservative texts into left-leaning curricula while they role-played confronting liberal teachers. Cheers and applause also greeted “quotation of the day” speaker Patrick McHenry, North Carolina's state representative: according to the July 25 entry in The American Prospect's weblog, Tapped (www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/07/index.html#001289), Mr. McHenry said, “John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards—they might as well be named Uday, Qusay, and Saddam Hussein when President Bush gets done with them.” He added that he hopes that Edwards wins the nomination so that Bush can send him “into hiding with bin Laden and Saddam.”

However, not all participants were equally enthused and enthralled with the convention and its beau-ideals. Sherry, a sharply dressed para-legal working her way through law school, remarked, “Before this convention, I'd have called myself a 'moderate' Republican because I believe that abortion should be safe and legal; I believe that ghetto Blacks and Native Americans deserve the right to self determination and the same chance for success as President Bush; I don't believe in 'big government'; and I strongly disagree with the classic liberal notion of stripping all wealth from the rich and forking it over to the poor. But I do believe that the nation's under-served both need and deserve a safety net of Welfare, health care, and public education—provided, that is, that they pay taxes and aren't here illegally to freeload off the rest of us.

“So, I'd hardly call myself a Democrat—I mean, who even knows what 'Democrat' means these days? Everything I said about my own beliefs should fit right in with the Party's middle-of-the-road position, right? Well, it didn't, and that was the real shocker. These people—the ones who don't merely get cars when they get their driver's licenses but who get flashy BMW convertibles, Alfa-Romeos, and other high-ticket cars my middle-class family could never afford—view the average, working-class American as the enemy. These college kids are perfectly happy to let Bush deploy American troops on the one hand and take away their pay and benefits with the other. They've never had to work for a thing; they're not even out in the real world yet; and they've certainly never had to serve in the military themselves, so they can't be bothered to care how the other half feels. Right there is a big part of the problem: because I do care how people less fortunate than me feel, I am the enemy, too. They're only too happy to demonize and dehumanize anyone who opposes them in the least. That, and they are so intolerant of anyone outside their right-wing-extreme clique that it drives me crazy!”

With that remark, Sherry left the convention. Perhaps she would have stayed around longer if she had realized that, by leaving, she would miss the “Who Wants to Be the Next Karl Rove” fashion pageant and look-alike contest, followed immediately by the eleven o'clock beer run and drinking party.

Whatever Happened to Al Jazeera in English?

July 25, 2003. In late March of this year, as the U.S. invasion of Iraq was well underway, American visitors to Al Jazeera's website noticed that the recently available English translation page had ceased to be available: the website promised that a new, improved English page would be ready by the end of April.

July is nearly over, and there is still no online English version of Al Jazeera. What happened? And why is it important?

As for what happened, one can only conclude that the American government does not want the local version of Middle Eastern news promulgated to English speakers around the world. In addition to dropping a few well-placed bombs, the U.S. was probably aided and abetted by Arabic ruling classes in quashing the online English translation of Al Jazeera because the blackout serves both groups politically—Mideast ruling classes, weaker than the American ruling class, have only to gain by criticizing, dismissing, and/or denying Al Jazeera to the world's English-speaking public. While the suppression of Al Jazeera in English dovetails nicely with the control exerted by the Bush administration to ensure that the only news of the invasion Americans read or heard came from “embedded” sources, why has the gag continued since Bush proclaimed “mission accomplished” on May 1st? Is it possible that the aftermath of the invasion is even uglier and more devastating than the firefight itself? Is the American occupation imposing forms of economic and philosophical slavery that make Saddam's regime look like a picnic? How are Americans to know what their government is doing in their name in Iraq?

This story is also important because, unlike the CNN to which it has been compared, Al Jazeera was an unbiased source of news. The factual reporting was irreproachable, and the writers and editors made every effort to elucidate all sides of the story. Al Jazeera even strove to be as fair as possible to the Israeli government in its reporting—which is saying a lot, given the respective ideologies of the region. Of course, Al Jazeera featured editorial articles, but the intent of each article was always made clear: editorial material was not mixed in with factual reporting (contrary to the Fox news standard operating procedure), and writers' opinions were clearly stated as such with clear intent not to deceive readers into mistaking said opinions for facts. This combination of journalistic integrity and local-eye-view made Al Jazeera one of the single most important news sources for English speakers interested in getting the whole story on any Mideastern issue.

This is a sad day for English speakers in the U.S. and abroad. Those who reveled in Al Jazeera's unbiased news continue to grieve over the loss of a trusted ally, and those who never read Al Jazeera may find the English translation's deafening silence an eerie reminder that Big Brother is watching and manipulating us all.

The “Longest Statement of Disinformation” Ever Fed to the U.S.

July 25, 2003. According to the “Democracy Now!” website (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/25/1443241), ex-CIA agent and analyst Melvin Goodman criticized Dick Cheney's recent attempts to re-establish the Bush administration's justification(s) to invade Iraq as the “longest statement of disinformation that I think the American government has distributed to the American people.” Bush, meanwhile, is blaming anyone and everyone but himself in an attempt to divest himself of responsibility for what he calls “failed intelligence”: in this case, his own.

Fingering Saudi Arabia for Supporting 9/11

July 25, 2003. According to the “Democracy Now!” website (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/25/1436226), the Saudi government knew about and supported al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/26/national/26SAUD.html?pagewanted=print&position=) corroborates this with descriptions of the hundreds of millions of dollars funneled by powerful Saudis into charitable fronts and other groups that may have helped finance the attacks. More information is available in the nearly 900-page investigative report just released by Congress, despite many months' worth of publication delays caused by Bush administration stonewalling. The report's findings offer damning indictments of the intelligence community. Senator Bob Graham, former head of the Senate intelligence committee, claims that the report proves that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.